Executive 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.
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
Ubiquiti Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00069, allowing GE Healthcare Ltd. to challenge claims in patent 11938201 held by The Johns Hopkins University.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Oura Health because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully convinced the PTAB that its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design's battery patent were strong enough for institution. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations, leading to the IPR being instituted on all 16 claims.
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.