Streaming media — US PTAB Patent Cases
34 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 34 total
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 13‑15 of U.S. Patent 9,762,639, alleging obviousness over multiple streaming‑media references such as Lewis, Pyle, Barraclough and Jain.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved with NL Giken to terminate IPR2025-00407 over U.S. Patent 8,677,391 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and notes the institution decision is still pending.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
WebGroup Czech Republic challenges DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting that 27 claims are obvious over earlier streaming patents and standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR, arguing strong merits and favorable discretionary factors.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
WebGroup Czech Republic petitions the PTAB to invalidate DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The Board is asked to institute the IPR.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent and granted joinder of Czech challenger Webgroup and NKL Associates, linking the case to a prior IPR over the same claims.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent (claims 1‑16) and granted joinder to Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, aligning the case with the earlier fuboTV/MasterClass IPR.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup CZ and NKL have filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of DISH's adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references. The petition argues strong Graham factors and no discretionary denial grounds.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed a petition for inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 16 claims of the patent are unpatentable over prior art references, Leaning and Gamble. The Board concluded that the combination of references rendered specific claims obvious, while other claims were anticipated by Leaning alone.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art streaming technologies. The petition also argues against discretionary denial, referencing Fintiv and the lack of a prior petition by the same party.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s ‘697 patent covering low‑latency sports video and data streaming. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and asking the PTAB to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging eleven claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems disclosed by Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, arguing they are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petitioner seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny discretionally.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Genius Sports seeks IPR on SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing that 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu, and urging the Board to institute the review.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s ’680 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent were obvious over Ogdon and Allen, while 8 claims remained patentable.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners fuboTV and Yanka have responded to DISH’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of patent 8,868,772 are unpatentable should stand. They contend DISH’s arguments are outside the scope of review and that the prior art clearly discloses continuous playback.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners fuboTV and Yanka responded to DISH's Director Review request, arguing the PTAB's decision finding all claims of US 9,407,564 unpatentable was correct and should not be overturned.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners are challenging claims of DISH Technologies' '772 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The core argument centers on prior art, specifically Leaning, which allegedly discloses adaptive bitrate streaming technology. Petitioners also assert that institutional factors strongly favor the institution of the IPR.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. has filed a Petition challenging DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent 9407564, asserting that all claimed limitations related to Adaptive Bitrate Streaming are obvious in view of prior art references Leaning and Gamble.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV and Yanka Industries successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (8868772) covering Adaptive Bitrate Streaming technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Gamble, leading to the institution of all 21 challenged claims.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent, challenging claims related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Leaning and Gamble. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 21 challenged claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C. were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board determined that prior art, specifically Leaning and Gamble, taught or rendered the claimed Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) technology obvious.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 16 claims of the '564 patent are unpatentable over prior art, primarily Leaning. The Board construed 'continuous playback' to mean no interruption occurs between files during a rate shift, finding this limitation was taught by Leaning.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that many claims of the ’555 adaptive‑rate streaming patent are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0), rendering them unpatentable, while other claims remain valid.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, while 8 claims survive. The decision affirms most of fuboTV’s objections but leaves several claims intact.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held 16 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑rate streaming patent unpatentable as obvious over Ogdon and Allen, with two additional claims invalidated over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0. The remaining nine claims were upheld.
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.