Executive Summary
DISH Network L.L.C.'s attempt to invalidate 40 claims of Entropic Communications' patent (8363681) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed clock synchronization methods were obvious over prior art, including IEEE802.3ah and Shvodian.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in DISH Network L.L.C. et al. vs Entropic Communications LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.vsEVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.
3D Systems Corporation et al.vsIntrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01241 and several other proceedings, allowing the merits phase of review to proceed.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2026-00124, allowing Medtronic to proceed with challenging Moskowitz Family LLC's patent.
Google LLCvs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully argued that the patent in question is unpatentable over prior art references Stubler and Wang under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), leading to an institution decision.
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.