Short Summary
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review request dated January 15, 2025, AT&T Services Inc. and co‑petitioners challenged the PTAB's decision to deny institution of IPR2024‑00997, which targets ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 10,798,754. Lead counsel Scott Hejny argues that the Board erred by failing to consider the prior‑art teachings and POSITA testimony (Fintiv Factor 6) and by improperly weighting Fintiv Factor 2, contrary to former‑Director Vidal's guidance. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the inter‑ partes review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in AT&T Services Inc. et al. vs ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.
Askeladden L.L.C.vs--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Patent 7480637, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining known SSL/TLS protocols with biometric authentication methods yields predictable results. The challenge centers on whether the combination of prior art elements—specifically Rescorla and Mathiassen's technologies—is inventive or merely an obvious modification for a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing they are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art systems that use dynamic device identifiers and a central server.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsValtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.
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.