Computer networking — US PTAB Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 4 · 108 total
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper seeks to invalidate Monarch’s ’845 patent covering IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, arguing the claims are obvious over Ananda, Wetterwald, and RFC4380 and requesting the PTAB to institute an IPR.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s infringement suit against Cisco over Patent 8,451,845 was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, ending the dispute before the PTAB could institute an IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,588,110 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under the statutory termination provisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Lionra Technologies’ request for review of the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,738,471 are unpatentable. Cisco argues the Board correctly applied Axonics precedent and that the prior art teaches the disputed limitation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lionra Technologies' U.S. Patent 7,738,471 covering high‑speed packet processing. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Lionra Technologies regarding patent 7,738,471, challenging claims related to high-speed packet header processing.
Genius Sports v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, asserting that claims 16‑30 are obvious or anticipated over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog references and urging the Board to institute the review.
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.
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.
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.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of U.S. Patent 11,050,654, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑00787 and to keep the settlement agreement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory provisions.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu LLC and Capital One filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Patent No. 6976248, arguing they are obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Johnson, Parthasarathy, Fowlow). The petitioner asserts that the claimed software delivery methods lack inventive step under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Monarch’s ’775 patent, asserting that claims 1 and 6 are obvious over prior‑art MPLS and pseudo‑wire literature, including Aggarwal’s patent and Hussain’s book.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB denial that found its VPLS failover claims un‑obvious over the Mitchell reference. The petition alleges the Board improperly added claim limitations, applied the wrong obviousness standard, and ignored the modified prior‑art embodiment.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s final decision in IPR2024-00539. They argue the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the petitioners.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's final decision in IPR2024-00679, alleging procedural abuse due to the patent owner's improper incorporation of evidence by reference. They argue the Board should vacate and remand the decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied the Director’s review of final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including Cisco’s challenge to InfoExpress’s patent 8,677,450 on network traffic management.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet requested a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against InfoExpress's patent 8,117,645. The Director denied the request, leaving the institution decision denied.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One National Association filed an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent 8056075 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The petition asserts that the claims are rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references including Fowlow and Kimera.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology initiated an IPR challenging the validity of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9460037, arguing that the claimed USB hub features are obvious. The petition focuses on combining prior art (Chang and Chang II) to demonstrate predictable design choices in computer networking hardware.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology initiated a Petition challenging the obviousness of claims in patent 10545899, which relates to USB hubs and connectivity. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are predictable combinations of prior art like Chang and Chang II.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Petition with the PTAB challenging claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9619420, arguing that the USB hub technology is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining existing components like host-to-host bridges and dual-role switching functionality renders the claimed invention predictable to a person skilled in the art.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco’s authorized response rebuts Umbra’s claim‑construction arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s interpretation of “end‑to‑end tunnel” aligns with the intrinsic record and that Umbra’s expert and prosecution‑history arguments lack support.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies requests a Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that invalidated its 10,630,505 patent covering end‑to‑end network tunnels. The patent owner contends the Board’s new claim construction and disregard of expert testimony were erroneous, seeking reversal and reinstatement of claims 1‑20.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review, asserting that the PTAB panel’s claim construction of “end‑to‑end tunnel” is erroneous and that the institution of the IPR against Cisco’s VPN tunneling patent should be vacated.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the USPTO's decision to institute an IPR against its server‑discovery patent, arguing the Board misread claim language and that the prior art does not teach a list of servers.
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.