US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 190 of 291 · 8,722 total
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu’s parallel IPR petitions against Piranha Media’s streaming‑technology patent were instituted despite a district court finding all claims invalid under §101. The patent owner seeks Director Review, arguing the panel should have denied institution under Fintiv guidance and the Trial Practice Guide.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media’s eSports platform patent, citing the patent’s prior invalidation in district court. The Board exercised its §314(a) discretion, concluding that proceeding would be inefficient.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Court decision.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against a peer‑to‑peer gaming patent, finding the petition failed the compelling‑merits test. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not teach key claim limitations, resulting in a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,776,120 covering a cyclonic vacuum cleaner with a moveable divider plate. The petition alleges lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. Discretionary factors are cited to favor institution.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition against Proxense’s ’960 patent, seeking to invalidate all 20 claims on the basis of obviousness over Giobbi, Dua and Broadcom references, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed a petition for inter partes review of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog references. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial under §314(a).
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697 covering live‑sports video and data streaming. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey and Herzog and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel claims 1‑9.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’905 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on Ludtke and Kon prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Proxense’s ’289 patent covering hybrid devices with secure memory and proximity authentication, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against Proxense's 8,886,954 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ludtke and Kon. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent on obviousness grounds, relying on the Ludtke and Kon references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’042 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is not justified.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed a petition to invalidate SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering live‑score overlay on video streams. The petition asserts obviousness over Ellis, Herzog, and Spivey references and asks the Board to institute the IPR.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu challenges Piranha Media Distribution’s patent via Inter Partes Review (IPR), arguing that combining prior art references Eldering-I and Eldering-II renders the claims obvious under 103. The petitioner asserts that user actions like skipping ads constitute a change in viewing parameters, thereby triggering adaptive ad rescheduling taught by the cited prior art.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu has filed a Petition challenging Piranha Media Distribution's patent covering adaptive ad insertion in video streaming. The core argument is that the claims are obvious when combining prior art references Wu and Doherty. This challenges the validity of the technology used in digital media delivery.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge a patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB because another, earlier petition challenging the same patent had already been instituted.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge patent 9,679,289 B1 was denied by the PTAB because a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent had already been instituted.
Google LLC v.--
The PTAB denied Google's attempt to file a second IPR against PROXENSE's patent because the Board had already instituted an earlier review.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive regarding live event broadcasting claims. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments that the claimed technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Ellis and Spivey. This sets the stage for a full trial on unpatentability grounds.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims relating to live event content delivery systems are likely unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding obviousness for multiple claims, leading to institution.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for Genius Sports Ltd.'s claims against SportsCastr Inc. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog) taught or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependents based on the preliminary record. This sets a significant hurdle for SportsCastr's patent validity in digital media streaming technology.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against SportsCastr Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board found that claims 1-9 were obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically demonstrating how known techniques could reduce data latency in live sports content delivery.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha Media. The denial was based on a prior district court finding that the challenged patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu successfully petitioned against Piranha Media Distribution's patent, arguing that key digital advertising insertion claims are obvious over prior art. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits for at least one claim.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu successfully petitioned PTAB, leading to institution of its IPR against Piranha Media Distribution. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable based on obviousness (103), specifically finding that combining prior art teachings from Wu and Doherty supports the Petitioner's claims in digital advertising insertion.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha, citing a prior district court ruling that the patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction of key terms like 'third party,' concluding that the claimed application is distinct from the trusted authority.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence, rejecting the Patent Owner's arguments against obviousness. The decision centered on whether prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) combined could teach all limitations of the claimed system for live event broadcasting.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.