US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 276 of 291 · 8,722 total
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00452, asserting the Board misapplied KSR precedent and case law on motivation and bodily incorporation. The petition references Intel decisions and a related institution ruling on another patent.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its cable‑modem patent. The petitioner asserts the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by examining references in isolation and seeks clarification on third‑party amicus participation.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Comcast's request for Director review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00445, keeping the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Entropic’s cable‑modem patent. The petition asserts the Board erred by analyzing each prior‑art reference in isolation instead of as the combinations with Thibeault. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's portable jump starter patent. The PTAB found all claims unpatentable, and the patent owner’s request for Director Review is contested by the petitioner, who argues the Board’s decision is well‑supported and consistent with precedent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00577 (and similarly in IPR2024-00671), leaving the original decisions in place.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its USB‑charging jump‑starter patent claims unpatentable. It argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by ignoring the core dispute over charging feasibility. The petition targets the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast's request for a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute its IPR against Entropic Communications was denied, leaving the original denial intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
An email from the PTAB Director authorizes ADC Solutions Auto to submit a limited 15‑page response to Director Review requests in IPR2024-00577 and IPR2024-00671, with no new evidence permitted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Entropic’s 7,889,759 cable‑network patent. The petition contends the Board made factual and legal errors in its motivation‑to‑combine analysis. It requests that the Director institute the IPR.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s petition argues the PTAB correctly applied Rabenko’s disclosure to find the ’775 patent claims unpatentable. The Board’s reasoning was sound, and the Director Review request is denied.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of a PTAB decision that invalidated claims of its cable‑modem patent. The patent owner alleges the Board relied on untimely arguments and misinterpreted key claim limitations.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB Director has received a review request from the patent owner in IPR2024-00446. Comcast may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner presented multiple grounds combining prior art references like Renken, Maycock, Kidambi, and Zhang. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenges Entropic's '775 Patent in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate lack of novelty and non-obviousness.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's jump starter patent (US 11,447,023) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the USB charging features are predictable combinations of known DC-DC boosting and jump starter technology.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's patent covering jump start apparatus technology, asserting that key claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed USB charging features are obvious when combining prior art references like Richardson with Zhao or Yu with Paparrizos.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense's patent 8646042, asserting that the claims are obvious over various prior art references including Giobbi and Broadcom. The petitioner argues that combining disclosures of PDKs and RDCs makes the claimed hybrid device predictable for proximity-based access control.
Dell Inc. et al. v.--
Dell Inc. et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR2024-00564, challenging SOFTEX's '649 patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103). The Board found that the Becton factors strongly favored institution, despite some Fintiv factors weighing against denial.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
Petitioner 3Shape A/S et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent claims, asserting that all 20 claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely heavily on combining prior art references such as Zhang and Babayoff to demonstrate predictable improvements in dental imaging technology.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
Petitioner asserts that the challenged dental imaging claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Sommer, Rubbert, Malfliet, and Estépar. The petition details how specific elements related to bite registration methods merely aggregate known technologies from these sources.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic's '775 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art references. The petition details multiple combinations of references (e.g., Rabenko/Gaspar) to establish non-obviousness across numerous claim sets in the cable modem technology space.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast initiated an IPR against Entropic's '759 patent, challenging all 23 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The challenger argues that combinations of prior art references—including Gurantz and Grube—render the methods for bit-loading modulation unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's patent (US 10135682) via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The challenger relies on numerous grounds combining references like Cooper-Saey and Prodan-Jalali to demonstrate predictability in wireless communications technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR, arguing that prior art renders the core signal monitoring and reporting claims obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of references like Kamieniecki and Konstantinos to demonstrate that the claimed technology is a predictable evolution of existing cable television systems.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast challenges Entropic's '518 patent, arguing that the multi-carrier modulation and bit-loading technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that prior art references (Afshary, Mirfakhraei, Welles) combine to render all four claimed methods unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (8284690) in an IPR, arguing that the claimed wireless ranging and communication methods were anticipated or obvious by existing standards like IEEE-802.16 and DOCSIS-2.0. The challenge utilized multiple grounds of invalidity based on various prior art references including Waxman, Won, and Zuckerman.
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.