Short Summary
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156). The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. This sets up a high-stakes challenge to core technology in digital media streaming.
Detailed Summary
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-00917) on all 18 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C., covering Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR). The petitioner, fuboTV Media Inc. and Yanka Industries, Inc., argued that the patent was obvious over prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. The Board preliminarily accepted this argument, finding that the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, the Board declined to deny institution based on General Plastic factors or Section 325(d), despite some procedural complexities regarding prior citations.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in fuboTV Media Inc. et al. vs DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC patent (U.S. 11,694,053), asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bangs, Kerdraon, Koh, and Fisher. The petition seeks institution on claims 1‑8 and 17‑20 under §§102 and 103.
Aktana, IncvsVeeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz seeks cancellation of all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 9,493,149, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors favor institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vs--
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of Whirlpool’s 12,543,922 dishwasher rack patent on obviousness and indefiniteness grounds, relying on multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
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.