Short Summary
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cisco and Fortinet against InfoExpress, finding no reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,350 would be found obvious over prior art.
Detailed Summary
Cisco Systems, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. petitioned for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent 8,347,350, asserting obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann. The Board denied institution of the IPR because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. Specifically, the Board rejected arguments that user authentication in the patented invention constituted applying a security policy, noting that the '350 patent describes these as separate process steps.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. vs InfoExpress Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
A statistical study of 2021 IPR final written decisions shows that patents deemed unpatentable typically have extensive prior‑art citations and often rely on new prior art and expert testimony introduced during the proceeding.
Genius Sports Ltd.vsSportsCastr 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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,500,496 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s patent on modified PH20 hyaluronidase enzymes, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The petition cites extensive expert analysis and prior‑art exhibits to show undue experimentation would be required to identify the claimed mutants.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al.vsSmart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
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.
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.