Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In this Final Written Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressed challenges to claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8356251. The Board determined that while claims 22 through 26 were obvious over combinations of Aldrey and Mahajan, rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the remaining claims (1-21) survived the obviousness challenge. This was primarily because the Board found that prior art reference Calvert failed to teach the required 'converting' step present in those earlier claims, despite extensive claim construction establishing 'media player' as software for playing media.
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
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
Askeladden L.L.C.vsCalabrese Stemer LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsValtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
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.