Short Summary
The PTAB denied fuboTV Media’s request for rehearing of the final written decision in IPR2024-00046, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction or consideration of prior art. The petition’s arguments on claim 7 were deemed untimely and unsupported.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00046 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed its earlier finding that 17 of the 25 challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner, fuboTV Media Inc., sought rehearing on claim 7, arguing that the Board misapprehended its mappings to the prior‑art references Ogdon and Allen and adopted an erroneous claim construction limiting the term “web servers.” The Board rejected these arguments, noting that the petitioner introduced new rationales not raised in the original petition and failed to provide a coherent interpretation of the prior art. Consequently, the rehearing request was denied, leaving the original unpatentability findings intact.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in fuboTV Media Inc. vs DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Anker Innovations Ltd.vsPowermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations challenges Powermat Technologies' patent 9,083,204 regarding inductive charging technology. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references, including Onishi and Purdy.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsKAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
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.
Apple Inc.vsLS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
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.