Executive Summary
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.
Related Cases
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd.vs--
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging KT IMAGING US, LLC's patent (8004602) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims related to integrated lens modules and image sensor structures are anticipated by combinations of prior art references like Imaoka/Seo and Ma/Wood.
Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '008 patent claims, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art references like Renken and Cholas. The PTAB institution decision recognized the compelling unpatentability challenges presented by Comcast regarding signal monitoring technology.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc.vsSitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 based on anticipation and obviousness over four prior art references (Almadi, Cardamone, Gutierrez, SCADA). The Petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render them obvious under § 103.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Guides Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 9,860,595, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds combining Tecot, Lee, Logan, Poslinski, and McElhatten. The case is pending institution.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al.vsTangent Technologies LLC et al.
A petition challenges a polymer board patent by asserting that the claimed simulated wood-grained structure is obvious. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references, including StaMixCo and Zumbrunnen, to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
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.