Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

IPR2025-01566

Applied Optoelectronics seeks a discretionary denial of an IPR petition filed by Accelight Technologies over its photonics patent (U.S. 10,042,116). The owner argues the petition repeats issues already litigated and relies on prior‑art already considered by the USPTO.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01566
Filing Date
26 September 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01266

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC

Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.

patentIPR2025-00180

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.

patentIPR2024-01054

Roku, Inc.vsAnonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

Roku challenges U.S. Patent No. 8510768, owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, over methods for audio content identification and fingerprinting. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious combinations of prior art references involving signal processing techniques.

patentIPR2024-00839

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al.vsLumenco, LLC

Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.

patentIPR2024-01388

Tableau Software, LLC et al.vsiCharts LLC

Tableau Software filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’595 patent covering interactive chart creation. The petition alleges all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art tools such as Rostoker and QlikView manuals, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call