Hulu, LLC et al. v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC

Google’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR on a video‑coding patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the denial was proper and requested the review be denied.

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsLionra Technologies Limited

The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they were obvious in light of prior art references (Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, Russell). The Board adopted a construction of 'concurrently writing' that aligned with both parties and district court precedent. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of disclosures taught all limitations of the claims for high-speed packet processing.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against The Johns Hopkins University regarding oncology/immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, despite procedural challenges from the Patent Owner.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Choulis, Sugiura, and Thompson. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'matrix material' and found multiple grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).