Network Communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
Alertus Technologies challenges the validity of Patent No. 9172765, arguing that all 13 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references, specifically Dillon and AAPA, with other relevant technical disclosures like Brady and Douglas to demonstrate obviousness in network communication protocols.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged the validity of a network communications patent (US 10602448) based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding sufficient likelihood for petitioner to prevail on at least one claim.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation by Zhang (Sec. 102) and obviousness using combinations of Zhang/Zill and Liu/Zhang (Sec. 103).
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Juniper Networks' attempt to challenge Orckit's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited General Plastic factors, finding that the claims were materially similar to those previously reviewed and Petitioner had prior knowledge of the asserted prior art.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of the final written decisions in IPR2024-00539 and four related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR concerning network reconfiguration protocols, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103). The patent relates to methods for rapid link failure recovery in Switching/Routing Protocols (STP).
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.