Executive Summary
The PTAB denied Adobe’s request for Director Review of the institution decision on patent 6,757,828, leaving the institution intact.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Adobe Inc. vs Jaffe, Jonathan is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s petition succeeded; the PTAB held all challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia seek IPR cancellation of a G.fast‑related patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Bingham, Strobel, and ITU contributions Wei and Kuipers.
Genius Sports Ltd.vsSportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.
Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft files an IPR petition challenging ToutVirtual’s 2023 ‘Virtual Systems Management’ patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art virtualization references.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00050, allowing the challenger to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.