Executive 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).
Related Cases
Senko Advanced Components, Inc.vsUS Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
Google LLCvsSonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Oracle CorporationvsVirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed a petition to invalidate VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering containerized application sets, asserting that all 34 claims are obvious over prior‑art virtualization references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to challenge Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB IPR proceeding, leading the Board to institute the trial on all 28 claims. The institution decision hinged on sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references Peter and Neroni.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition challenges Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s ’077 Wi‑Fi patent. Wilus seeks Director Review, arguing settled expectations and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions merit denial of institution. The Board had previously instituted the IPR.
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.