Short Summary
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Procomm's 2006 DAS gain‑control patent, arguing that the Solum prior art anticipates every limitation. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2024-01453, Ericsson Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless challenge claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,377, which covers a method for proportional gain distribution in distributed antenna systems. The petition asserts that the Solum publication (US2003/0162516) discloses the same problem, architecture, and solution, rendering the claims anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102. The petition further contends that the Board should not exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d) because Solum was not considered during prosecution, nor under § 314(a) based on favorable Fintiv factors, including minimal overlap with parallel litigation. No claim constructions are requested, and the petition seeks institution of the IPR to cancel the challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ericsson Inc. et al. vs Procomm International Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC
NXP Semiconductors has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener references.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc.vsMarinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑13 of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN patents Dilley, Russell, and Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings and proposed claim constructions.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged 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.