Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sterling Computers Corporation

IPR2025-00430

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sterling Computers' 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, citing obviousness over Dumais, Rose, and a Rose‑Bieganski combination.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00430
Filing Date
31 January 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentPGR2026-00011

Univacco Technology Inc.vsLEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG

Univacco Technology Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of the ‘935 decorative‑foil patent, alleging lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on extensive expert analysis of the patent’s functional language and missing test protocols.

patentIPR2024-00751

Google LLCvsDialect LLC

Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution in an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petitioner contends the Board misinterpreted the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony.

patentIPR2025-00584

Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint PTAB petition to seal their settlement agreement, seeking to keep it confidential and limit access under federal regulations.

patentIPR2025-00230

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

Zaxcom seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2010 microphone patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary considerations and Fintiv factors, ignoring settled expectations and the Director’s Guidance.

patentIPR2024-00938

Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038. They jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call