Microsoft Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp.

Apple Inc.vsCOBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Apple Inc. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC

Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.

Juniper Networks, Inc.vsMonarch Networking Solutions LLC

The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 10 claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Li and Wu. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'domain,' which was crucial to establishing the combination of teachings from both sources.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Wilus Institute’s ’035 Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters and UL‑MU transmissions.