Executive Summary
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. vs Corning Incorporated is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Vicor CorporationvsDelta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied Vicor Corporation's request to institute IPR against Delta Electronics, Inc.'s patent 8711580, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
Apple Inc.vsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo's IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures over Cyclic Diversity Systems was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden regarding the prior art reference Dammann’s status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Nokia of America Corporation et al.vsIarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.
Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge a patent from Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board utilized its discretion to deny institution because this petition was ranked last among seven parallel challenges.
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.