Short Summary
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
Detailed Summary
In this Final Written Decision, the Board addressed challenges to claims 1-26 of patent 8356251, which relate to content delivery and media streaming systems. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that claims 22 through 26 were unpatentable over combinations of Danciu and Mahajan under § 103(a). However, the Petitioner was unsuccessful in proving obviousness for claims 1-21 against prior art references such as Calvert, Aldrey, Danciu, and Mahajan. Claim construction established 'media player' as software for playing media. The Board also dismissed the Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike as moot.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Charter Communications, Inc. et al. vs Touchstream Technologies, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01264, allowing the challenged claims to proceed to trial based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.
SK hynix Inc.vsAdvanced Memory Technologies LLC
SK hynix has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of U.S. Patent 8,593,888 covering flash‑memory voltage regulation, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior patents such as Tomita, Im, Nam, and Nakayama.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd.vsShenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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.