Video processing — US PTAB Patent Cases
11 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 11 total
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google's request to institute IPR against Cellular South's patent (11,126,853), finding the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Maxell’s ’645 video‑processing patent. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kim and Fujimura references.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of VideoLabs’ ’238 patent after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek to close the proceeding to conserve resources.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, filing a joint notice to vacate the scheduled case management conference and dismiss the case.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS moves to withdraw its IPR petition after a settlement in related Roku proceedings renders the challenge moot.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully challenged four claims of Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC's patent (10218995) in the PTAB IPR proceeding. The Board found that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully petitioned to challenge WellcomeMat's patent claims regarding online video cue point management. The PTAB institution decision was based on multiple grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
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.