US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 235 of 291 · 8,722 total
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Reed Semiconductor Corporation's IPR against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to adequately map claims onto prior art references. The denial was based on insufficient explanation regarding specific functional limitations in the voltage converter technology.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 21 challenged claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C. were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board determined that prior art, specifically Leaning and Gamble, taught or rendered the claimed Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) technology obvious.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 16 claims of the '564 patent are unpatentable over prior art, primarily Leaning. The Board construed 'continuous playback' to mean no interruption occurs between files during a rate shift, finding this limitation was taught by Leaning.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily Leaning. The Board determined that Leaning discloses key adaptive bitrate streaming features, including methods for segmenting video and implementing rate switching based on network performance factors.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that many claims of the ’555 adaptive‑rate streaming patent are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0), rendering them unpatentable, while other claims remain valid.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, while 8 claims survive. The decision affirms most of fuboTV’s objections but leaves several claims intact.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held 16 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑rate streaming patent unpatentable as obvious over Ogdon and Allen, with two additional claims invalidated over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0. The remaining nine claims were upheld.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV Media’s request for rehearing of the final written decision in IPR2024-00046, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction or consideration of prior art. The petition’s arguments on claim 7 were deemed untimely and unsupported.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result unchanged.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV Media Inc.'s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs against DISH Technologies patents.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1–3,5,16–20,22,26–28,30 of U.S. Patent 10,469,554 are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) and thus unpatentable, while claims 4,7,8,10–14,23–25 remain valid.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00902 and related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00904, leaving the original IPR findings in place.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs, including the challenge to DISH’s patent 11,677,798.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Court decision.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB denied Bizlink Technology's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00687 concerning patent 8,808,017. The prior decision remains in effect.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Petitioners challenged LANCIUM LLC's patent on renewable power integration in flexible datacenters, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Pelio and Chapel. The core dispute centers on whether combining known concepts for dynamic power delivery renders the patented technology predictable.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '555 Patent, challenging 23 claims related to adaptive streaming technology. The petitioner argues that prior art references like Ogdon and SMIL 2.0 anticipate or render the claimed multi-bitrate streaming methods obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '680 Patent, arguing the multi-bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found strong arguments for institution based on established frameworks. This move initiates a critical examination of the patent's validity in the media streaming space.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. challenged DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '554 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ogdon and Allen, potentially combined with SMIL 2.0. This challenge targets fundamental methods of video segmentation and quality switching.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the adaptive bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 to invalidate the patent.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '798 Patent, asserting that its adaptive bitrate streaming claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that prior art combinations, including Ogdon/Allen and SMIL 2.0 standards, render the claimed features obvious.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC
BOTE, LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review against Twitch LLC's '458 Patent concerning inflatable paddleboards. The petitioner challenges 15 claims based on anticipation and obviousness over various prior art references. The IPR has been instituted, moving the case toward a full evidentiary hearing.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC
BOTE, LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Twitch LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,479,458 for inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the patent's claims would be obvious over prior art references.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology initiated an IPR against Anderson Power Products regarding electrical connector claims 1-4 and 7-12, alleging anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board instituted the proceeding, finding sufficient evidence to proceed on all challenged claims.
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.