Short Summary
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that ordered review of an expired content‑delivery patent owned by Sandpiper CDN. The petition argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the district‑court record, making the decision an outlier.
Detailed Summary
In a Request for Director Review, Microsoft challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of Sandpiper CDN’s U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903, which covers alias‑name mapping in content delivery networks. The petitioner argues that the Board improperly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine to an expired patent, mischaracterized a brief district‑court procedural pause as a stay, and relied on a single prior‑art reference (Kenner) that does not disclose critical claim limitations. Citing numerous prior decisions where expired patents were denied review, Microsoft contends the institution decision is inconsistent and arbitrary, and urges the Director to reverse it.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs Sandpiper CDN, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsCerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Revvo Technologies’ challenge to Cerebrum Sensor Technologies’ patent. The review focuses on claim construction issues raised by the petitioner.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of U.S. Patent 11,050,654, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDamaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of SnapAid’s ’452 patent covering real‑time image‑quality assessment. The challenger alleges obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter.
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.