TikTok Inc. et al. v. NTECH Properties, Inc.

IPR2024-01339

TikTok's IPR challenge against NTECH Properties failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying all grounds of obviousness. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the cited prior art taught or suggested the limitations of the challenged claims in the video streaming patent.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01339
Judge(s)
KEN B. BARRETT, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, SCOTT RAEVSKY
Decision Date
23 August 2024

Detailed Summary

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied TikTok Inc.'s Inter Partes Review (IPR) against NTECH Properties, Inc., regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,317,597 B2. The petitioner asserted multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, primarily relying on combinations of Marcus156 and Harbick. However, the Board found that TikTok failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the cited art taught or suggested the specific limitations recited in the challenged claims across all asserted grounds.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in TikTok Inc. et al. vs NTECH Properties, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00120

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.)vsMaxell, Ltd.

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.

patentIPR2025-00526

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKeyless Licensing LLC

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Keyless Licensing’s ’602 patent covering edge‑gesture UI elements, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Tseng and Jeong.

patentIPR2025-00845

Apple Inc. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC

Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.

patentIPR2025-00405

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patentIPR2025-00820

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.

Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call