Short Summary
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
Detailed Summary
Altice USA initiated a Petition to challenge Patent No. 11048751 owned by Touchstream Technologies, Inc., asserting that Claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner's core argument rests on the combination of known technologies, specifically citing Aldrey and Mahajan to demonstrate obviousness in media content control/streaming. While the petition was filed, it was ultimately joined into an existing IPR (IPR2024-00324), indicating that the dispute over patent validity is proceeding within a broader institutional context.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Altice USA, Inc. et al. vs Touchstream Technologies, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 8,230,101 on obviousness grounds over Lamkin, Franke, Fiechter, and Ito references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,687,281 covering non‑contiguous channel bonding in IEEE 802.11ax. The petition relies on multiple Wi‑Fi standard disclosures to argue lack of novelty and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsOptronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director review of a denied IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ ’336 patent was rejected, leaving the patent intact.
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.