Executive Summary
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Altice USA, Inc. et al. vs Touchstream Technologies, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
Petitioner Ilooda Co., Ltd. and Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged the validity of Serendia, LLC's '836 patent in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, and Lee.
Askeladden L.L.C.vsCalabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB instituted trial on all four claims of patent 7357310 after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner, Askeladden L.L.C., would prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The grounds relied heavily on the prior art reference 'Horie' to anticipate and render obvious the mobile payment authorization claims.
Google LLCvsProxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.
i4F Licensing NVvsVILOX AB
i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.
Shopify Inc.vsDKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify Inc.'s request to institute IPR against DKR Consulting LLC's '995 patent. The denial was based on administrative efficiency, as a District Court had already ruled all challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.