Optical communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
23 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 23 total
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of six inter partes reviews, finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the deadline for further briefing had passed.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and Brazos Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,441,721, a fiber‑Raman amplifier invention, and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and statutory authority for termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and confidentiality protections.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled 16 inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics' optical‑transceiver patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Quicker Connections LLC
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,448,367 owned by Applied Optoelectronics. The petition asserts that all nine claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical transceiver adapters.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑9 and 15‑19 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’890 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Takashi, Sato, and Ho references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed TOSA features were known in the industry prior to filing.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter‑partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ U.S. Patent 10,042,116, arguing that the AWG‑based optical transceiver concepts were obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, citing Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies filed an IPR petition challenging Applied Optoelectronics' 10,788,690 patent covering optical isolator arrays. The petition asserts anticipation by Wang (102) for claims 1‑10 and obviousness over Wang and Xiong (103) for claims 11‑19, seeking cancellation of all claims.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai references.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art publications. The petition focuses on the device’s carrier structure and the angled AWG surface.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,379,301 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by prior‑art references Shen and Soldano. The petition stresses that these references were not used during prosecution and requests the Board to institute review.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ optical isolator array patent, arguing anticipation by a Chinese patent and obviousness over that patent combined with a U.S. reference. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules, citing Wu and Mizue as anticipatory prior art.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight has filed an IPR petition challenging Applied Optoelectronics' 10,042,116 patent covering AWG‑based optical transceiver modules, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, asserting obviousness over Kim and over a Ho‑Lee combination. The petition includes a claim‑construction argument for the term “carrier.”
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
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.