Short Summary
PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies patents.
Detailed Summary
In an order dated March 17, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied the requests for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in IPR2024-00918 (patent 9,407,564) and IPR2024-00919 (patent 8,868,772). The petitioners, Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, sought review of the Board's decisions, but the Director concluded the requests did not satisfy the statutory standards for review. Consequently, the PTAB’s earlier findings in the IPRs remain in effect.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. vs DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al.vsWireless Alliance, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by major carriers against Wireless Alliance, LLC's patent 9144106. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the compelling merits standard for unpatentability under § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs/PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court undermine its PTAB petitions.
Capital One, N.A. et al.vsWapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.vsJina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997. The parties cite statutory confidentiality protections and seek to keep the settlement separate from the PTAB file.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
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.