Short Summary
An email notifies the parties that ParkerVision’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00934 has been received, allowing Texas Instruments a 15‑page response.
Detailed Summary
The PTAB sent a Director Review Request notice for IPR2024‑00934, indicating that ParkerVision, Inc. has asked the Director to review the case. Texas Instruments, the petitioner, may file a response limited to the issues raised, no more than 15 pages, within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed. The Director will decide whether to grant or deny the review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Texas Instruments Incorporated vs ParkerVision, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsSonos, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
LifeVac, LLCvsDCStar Inc.
LifeVac, LLC's IPR petition against DCStar Inc. was denied by the PTAB after the Board found insufficient evidence of unpatentability. The decision hinged on a prior art challenge regarding an inventor-originated public disclosure (IDEAR) that predated one key reference.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
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.