Computer networking — US PTAB Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 4 · 108 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its ’595 patent. The petition argues the panel erred by equating the patent’s specific “list of available servers” request with a generic “services” request in the Hankins prior art, and by using the patent itself as a roadmap. It asks the Director to vacate the institution and terminate the proceeding.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00497 concerning Umbra's patent 10,630,505.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Universal Connectivity’s packet‑preemption patent, arguing it is anticipated and obvious over earlier Banes and Calvignac disclosures.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo successfully challenged several claims of Intellectual Ventures II's patent (8474016) in an IPR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute on all challenged claims. The Board found strong evidence that prior art references like Neufeld and PCI Bridge Spec taught or rendered obvious various limitations of the asserted claims.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that U.S. Patent No. 7,325,140 B2 is unpatentable due to obviousness over prior art references. Specifically, the combination of Neufeld and Syvanne renders claims 11 and 12 obvious, while other combinations involving IPMI render multiple claims invalid.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges 7325140 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art related to remote device management. The petitioner contends that allowance was based on low-level implementation details already disclosed in references like Neufeld and IPMI/Lawrence.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that its dynamic ACL patent claims are obvious. The company alleges procedural violations and improper claim construction based on a late‑filed dictionary definition.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems challenges Lionra Technologies' patent (7623518) in an IPR, asserting that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner focuses on network access control list (ACL) improvements and dynamic packet handling techniques using references like Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Lionra Technologies Limited's patent (7623518) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for Cisco regarding several claims related to dynamic access control lists and network security.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on a combination of prior art references (Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou). The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings to enhance network security and implement advanced ACL functions.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Umbra's data‑beacon networking claims obvious. Umbra contends the Board misinterpreted the claim preamble and ignored key evidence, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems challenged UMBRA Technologies’ ’632 patent on data‑beacon and SD‑WAN innovations. UMBRA’s response argues the cited ’421 patent and ’685 provisional lack the required disclosures and contain cancelled matter, rendering them non‑prior art. The patent owner also asserts the term “data beacon” is a limiting preamble limitation not taught by the prior art.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper’s IPR challenge to Monarch’s IPv4/IPv6 inter‑domain routing patent is countered with a sur‑reply asserting that the cited prior art is either not publicly available or teaches different solutions, and that new arguments are procedurally improper.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motion Offense’s file‑sharing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Houston, Garcia and Wu. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
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.