Video compression — US PTAB Patent Cases
48 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 48 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of four claims of InterDigital’s HEVC‑related ’877 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on a video‑compression patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director’s discretion was proper and that statutory and procedural challenges were untenable.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2015 video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art combinations involving Phek, Martins, He, and Sakazume. The petition argues the examiner never considered these combinations, seeking institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2‑4 and 11 of U.S. Patent 10,218,995, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of the ’303 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Demircin and Kimoto references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed a petition to invalidate VideoLabs' 2010 picture coding patent, asserting that the sole claim is obvious over a 2002 Nokia (Karczewicz) publication combined with H.324 and H.263 standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claim 1.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,175,148 covering video‑encoding quantization techniques. The petition asserts obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards and requests cancellation of all 23 claims.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Phek, YuChuan, He and Martins. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, alleging obviousness over the Karczewicz publication and the MPEG‑1/H.263 standards. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. §103 for all 21 challenged claims.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent. The challenge relies on obviousness over the Karczewicz publication and the MPEG‑1/H.263 standards. The petition adopts prior Board constructions from an earlier Amazon IPR.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’321 video‑coding patent, asserting that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1, the Kim patent, and Yagasaki. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’267 video‑compression patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Wada and the Karczewicz applications. The petition seeks cancellation of all 36 claims.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Nokia’s video‑coding patent, arguing obviousness over Karczewicz and the MPEG‑1/H.263 combination.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over earlier video standards. The petition relies on §103 and cites Karczewicz, MPEG‑1, and H.263 as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’833 HEVC video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over Rusert, Zheng, Nakamura and WD4. The petition argues the examiner ignored critical prior art and seeks institution of the review.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks director review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s ‘808 patent covering a redefined skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored the patent’s explicit lexicography.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia filed a Director Review Request asking the USPTO to overturn the Board’s decision to institute IPR2024-00847 against Amazon. The petition argues the Board erred in combining mutually exclusive video‑coding modes and ignored the term “skip coding mode.”
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks a Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent covering a novel skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board’s obviousness findings are unsupported and misinterpret the patent’s terminology.
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.