Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v. Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.vsUMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent 11108595. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and favorable regarding Fintiv factors.

Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC

Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11,381,866) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combining Cholas and Petrovic with references like Rabaey, Maalej, Lee, and Takahiko to demonstrate non-patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Arista Networks, Inc.vsOrckit Corporation

Arista Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection functionality within a Software Defined Networking controller is obvious.

Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al.vsMetrom Rail, LLC

Siemens Mobility's IPR challenge against Metrom Rail's rail vehicle control patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the arguments presented were substantially similar to those previously raised during prosecution, leading to a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).

ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SEvsTexas Instruments Incorporated

ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE's IPR challenge against Texas Instruments Incorporated was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that ELMOS lacked adequate motivation and particularity in its obviousness arguments across multiple grounds.