Short Summary
Reolink Innovation Inc. has filed an IPR Petition challenging patents held by THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY regarding Peer-to-Peer (P2P) connectivity for video streaming. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Lorex Manual and Kim941.
Detailed Summary
This petition challenges 11 claims related to P2P Connectivity for Video Streaming, asserting invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petitioner details multiple grounds of obviousness, such as combining conventional techniques like linking servers and hole-punching (Kim941) with existing DVR systems (Lorex Manual), or using combinations involving Lorex Video, Galvin, and Kuo. These arguments target claims ranging from 1 to 16, asserting that the claimed methods would have been predictably obvious before the effective filing date.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. vs THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Google LLCvsValtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google’s challenge to Valtrus’s 7,748,005 patent succeeded, finding all twenty claims unpatentable for lack of written‑description support and obviousness over the McCarthy application and Gien micro‑kernel reference.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care’s challenge to Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent succeeded, finding all nine claims unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation has filed a petition to invalidate IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 12,044,901 covering head‑worn electronic devices. The petition asserts lack of priority and anticipatory/obviousness grounds based on Howell‑887 and multiple prior‑art combinations. The PTAB has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
Court 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.