Streaming media — US PTAB Patent Cases
34 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 34 total
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1–3,5,16–20,22,26–28,30 of U.S. Patent 10,469,554 are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) and thus unpatentable, while claims 4,7,8,10–14,23–25 remain valid.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs, including the challenge to DISH’s patent 11,677,798.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of its petition. The petition relies on the strong prior art reference WO 02/49343 A1 (“Leaning”).
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.