Short Summary
Entropic Communications requests Director review of a PTAB decision that found its television channel‑selection patent unpatentable. The owner argues the Board ignored prior examiner and reexamination findings, violating a recent Director memorandum.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review Request filed by Entropic Communications LLC, the patent owner challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that declared all claims of U.S. Patent 11,381,866 unpatentable. The request asserts that the Board failed to reconcile its findings with earlier contrary determinations from the examiner and a reexamination of a related patent, as mandated by the Director’s September 2025 memorandum. The same Zhang patent reference and arguments were previously presented to the Office and rejected, yet the Board did not provide the detailed explanation required. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and a remand for proper consideration.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Comcast Corporation et al. vs Entropic Communications LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsGenghisComm Holdings LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of GenghisComm’s ’386 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil‑537, Galda, Brüninghaus and Dowling.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00458, upholding the Board’s discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLCvsFacet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
American Airlines, Inc. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
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.