Short Summary
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate NTECH's U.S. Patent 9,923,947 covering custom media programming. The petition relies on three § 103 obviousness grounds using Whitehead, Marcus ’904, and Cristofalo references. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Detailed Summary
TikTok Inc., together with its affiliates, has submitted a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,923,947, owned by NTECH Properties, Inc. The patent claims a method for generating and updating customized media programming using an aggregator and a publisher. TikTok contends that claims 1 and 2 are obvious in view of three prior‑art references: Whitehead (U.S. Pat. 8,555,318), Marcus ’904 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0015904), and Cristofalo (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0152117). Each ground is framed under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the prior art either alone or in combination renders the claimed steps obvious. The petition also argues that there is no basis for discretionary denial under § 325(d) or the Fintiv factors and requests that the PTAB institute the IPR and find the claims unpatentable. A related district‑court case (NTECH Properties, Inc. v. ByteDance Ltd., No. 2:24‑cv‑00130) is pending, and TikTok is filing parallel IPRs against related family patents.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in TikTok Inc. et al. vs NTECH Properties, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAlmondNet, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.
Luxottica of America Inc.vsE-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of e‑Vision’s ’612 smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Bluetooth headset and voice‑assistant disclosures such as Howell, Gruber, Jannard‑740, and Osterhout.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01315 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institution decisions across various proceedings.
Paragon 28, Inc.vsTREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, an affiliate of Zimmer Biomet, petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace’s ’481 bunion‑correction patent, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious over multiple prior‑art surgical references.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of its ‘723 slipform paver patent. The petition alleges obviousness over the CIII manual, Rio and Files patents, and a lack of written description for a transducer placement. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the proceeding.
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.