Digital media — US PTAB Patent Cases
23 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 23 total
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of ART Research’s ’840 patent, which covers video annotation and indexing. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Datar, Zhou, Gupta, Smith, Friedlander, and Mouilleseaux.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies’ 2012 media‑server patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUSTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Russ patent. The petition also argues there is no discretionary denial basis.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR challenging NL Giken's content streaming patent, asserting that core bookmarking and next-content navigation features are obvious over prior art references Cordray and Wiser.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu seeks Director Review of two instituted IPRs covering its streaming‑technology patent after a district court ruled the claims invalid under §101. The patent owner argues the Board should deny institution under Fintiv and the Trial Practice Guide, and stay the proceedings.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Roku’s ’790 patent. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317 and Board practice allowing termination when no merits have been decided.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00787 after settling their dispute with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding, which had not yet been instituted.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites successfully obtained institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point editing for real‑estate marketing, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and rejecting discretionary‑denial arguments.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, jointly moving to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 11,785,275.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Digital Media Technology Holdings seeks a 30‑day extension to file a Director Review request after the PTAB’s final decision on its U.S. Patent 7,574,725, citing good cause due to counsel’s age and heavy workload.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point processing for online real‑estate videos. Petitioner Aylo Freesites showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, and the Board rejected discretionary denial arguments.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB granted Digital Media Technology Holdings a two‑week extension to file a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00736 concerning patent 7,574,725.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial of institution for IPR2024-00518, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored merits. The Board had denied institution under discretionary grounds.
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.