fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

IPR2024-00919

Court decision.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00919
Decision Date
17 May 2024
Filing Date
17 May 2024

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. et al. vs DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01392

NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.)vsBitSight Technologies, Inc.

NormShield (Black Kite) and BitSight have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on BitSight’s ’331 patent. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue termination promotes efficiency and reduces costs.

patentIPR2025-01060

Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc.vsQuanterix Corp.

Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.

patentPGR2026-00022

Paragon 28, Inc.vsTREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

Treace Medical and Fusion Orthopedics settled their patent and trademark lawsuit over bunion‑correction technology. The settlement was announced in a press release and filed as an exhibit in the PGR proceeding.

patentIPR2025-01016

ROBE lighting s.r.o.vsGuangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.

ROBE Lighting petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Guangzhou Haoyang’s ‘373 patent covering a self‑testing stage light fixture, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Jurik luminaire patents.

patentIPR2026-00101

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC

The PTAB held that Meta Platforms' petition proved all 20 claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent obvious over Burfeind and Crowley, rendering the claims unpatentable.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call