Short Summary
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ U.S. Patent 10,042,116, arguing that the AWG‑based optical transceiver concepts were obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter‑partes review, Accelight Technologies challenges claims 1‑4, 10‑13, 15 and 16 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’116 patent covering an arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) chip with a direct‑coupling substrate. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features—such as the angled surface, substrate integration, and direct optical coupling—were disclosed in earlier publications by Lee, Kim, Ho, Bernasconi, Soldano and Yoshikawa, rendering the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition also cites 35 U.S.C. § 102 for prior‑art anticipation. Accelight requests that the Board institute the IPR and cancel the challenged claims, while indicating it will not pursue parallel district‑court litigation if the IPR proceeds.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. vs Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's battery patent (8968924). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Ohata and Kavan. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to a full trial phase at the PTAB.
Digital Global Systems, Inc.vsDeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate DeepSig’s 11,777,540 patent, asserting that its AI‑driven radio‑predistortion claims are obvious over earlier disclosures by Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa. The petition outlines three statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges institution of the review.
Shuttleslide, LLCvsSea Swivel Inc.
Sea Swivel Inc. submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny ShuttleSlide’s post‑grant review of its trolling‑motor mount patent, arguing lack of statutory merit, defective prior‑art copies, and unreliable witness testimony.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.vsSpruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences' U.S. Patent 10,849,908 covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims.
Coretronic Corporation et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
The Director denied institution of the IPR against Maxell's patent 7159988, citing settled expectations and potential duplication with a parallel district court case.
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.