Short Summary
fuboTV Media Inc. has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the adaptive bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 to invalidate the patent.
Detailed Summary
fuboTV Media Inc. filed an IPR petition against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138, which covers adaptive-rate content streaming using streamlets of varying bitrates. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious (103) when combining prior art references such as Ogdon and Allen, or by adding SMIL 2.0 to those teachings. This challenge occurs while related district court litigation and ITC investigations involving both companies are ongoing, highlighting a significant dispute over foundational media streaming technology.
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
Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 36 claims of ImberaTek's 7,989,944 patent covering embedded components in circuit boards, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
National Beef Packing Company, LLCvsInstitute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenges Patent 9845486 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in microbiological detection methods. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Rayman and Nagar, disclose or render obvious the claimed steps involving sampling, dilution, and assaying.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
DISH Network filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications’ 8,631,450 patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied obviousness law by demanding a specific benefit, contrary to precedent, and seeks reversal.
US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB instituted trial on all 17 claims of patent 11415760, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for many claims over Raven and Kuffel. The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of 'slidably received,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow interpretation.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al.vsFeit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two consolidated IPRs covering its LED lighting patent, citing failure to disclose a Chinese parent company and contradictory claim‑construction arguments by the petitioners.
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.