Digital media streaming — US PTAB Patent Cases
36 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 36 total
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.
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The PTAB granted Roku’s motion to join its inter partes review with Meta’s pending IPR, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23 of the ’878 patent on the same 103 grounds used in the earlier proceeding.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One and Hulu filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement with Implicit confidential and to end the IPR over patent 8,056,075. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One, together with Implicit, settled a dispute over a video‑streaming patent, prompting an unopposed motion to terminate the IPR.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites requests Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on DISH's multi‑bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of the Leaning reference.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute IPR2024‑00514, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and made factual errors.
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.