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
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.
TikTok Inc. et al.vsNTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against a media‑feed aggregation patent, alleging the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier instituted petitions and misinterprets the Whitehead prior art.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Apple Inc.vsVampire Labs, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Solventum CorporationvsWound Healing Technologies Corp.
Solventum Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of Wound Healing Technologies' wound‑dressing patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Argenta, Hu, Biggie and Lockwood.
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.