Short Summary
Ericsson has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00084, and the patent owner must respond within five days with a limited brief.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00084, Ericsson Inc. and co‑petitioners have submitted a request for Director Review concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,219,000 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC. The Director’s email instructs the patent owner that any response must be confined to the issues raised, limited to five pages, filed within five business days, and may not introduce new evidence. No further briefing is permitted at this stage, and 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 Ericsson Inc. et al. vs Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory patent were obvious over Harris and JEDEC FBDIMM standards, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘254 patent, asserting that the Fujiki publication renders the claims obvious under §103 and that no discretionary denial applies.
Microsoft Corporation et al.vsX1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
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.