Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

IPR2024-00515

Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies’ patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and failed to consider the petition’s merits.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00515
Filing Date
30 January 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01265

3Shape A/S et al.vsMedit Corporation et al.

3Shape A/S filed an Initial Petition challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner targets multiple claim subsets using Trousset, Durbin, and Kariathungal as evidence of obviousness.

patentIPR2024-01310

Genius Sports Ltd.vsSportsCastr Inc.

Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, arguing they are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petitioner seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny discretionally.

patentPGR2025-00001

Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.vsShoulder Innovations, Inc.

Catalyst OrthoScience has petitioned the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.

patentIPR2024-00746

Google LLCvsDialect LLC

Google LLC filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,398,209 held by Dialect LLC, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing conversational AI prior art. The petition details multiple grounds of obviousness (Grounds 1-5), combining references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Redfern to demonstrate predictability in speech recognition techniques.

patentIPR2024-00797

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.

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