Social networking — US PTAB Patent Cases
7 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 7 total
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’815 patent covering social‑network event coordination, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over existing social‑network and event‑planning technologies.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions to invalidate SitNet’s ’769 patent covering situational networks, arguing all 30 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites multiple earlier patents and publications and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,336,052, asserting obviousness over two sets of prior‑art references covering social‑network event handling. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms' IPR against Dialect was resolved through a settlement between Dialect and Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a stay of all deadlines. The stay provides a 29‑day window to finalize the settlement and file dismissal papers.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google successfully secured institution of IPR against EscapeX IP over a social networking patent, challenging 24 claims based on obviousness.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google LLC successfully invalidated EscapeX IP LLC's patent (10474687) in the PTAB, finding all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied on combinations of prior art references like Fuloria and Andler to demonstrate that the claimed content engagement systems were predictable advancements in social networking technology.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent 8332454, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Amidon, Wong, and Gogic. The PTAB institution decision was strongly favored due to compelling merits and favorable parallel litigation status.
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.