Altice USA, Inc. et al. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

IPR2024-01262

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01262
Judge(s)
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, AARON W. MOORE
Decision Date
16 August 2024

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

patentIPR2025-00424

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims related to mercury removal from flue gas using activated carbon sorbents. The Board found the Petitioner met a reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard, despite disputes over prior art reduction to practice.

patentIPR2024-00678

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against InfoExpress Inc.'s network security patent (8117645) before the PTAB. The Board denied institution because the petitioner could not demonstrate that prior art teachings sufficiently suggested specific auditing limitations in the claims.

patentIPR2026-00169

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.

Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,156,669 covering an endovascular clot‑removal system. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Garrison, Goff, Brady, Pons, Schaffer, and Hartley. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

patentIPR2025-00750

Alpinestars S.p.A et al.vsDainese S.p.A.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al.'s IPR challenge against Dainese's inflatable safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, despite arguments regarding obviousness over prior art combinations.

patentIPR2025-01045

Wise PLC et al.vs--

Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.

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