Executive Summary
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Cerence’s ’486 patent on contrastive‑stress speech synthesis, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art TTS systems.
Related Cases
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled IPR2025-01477 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity was decided.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsVIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Chris Hoff of Barnes & Thornburg filed a Director Review request on behalf of VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD. after the Board instituted IPR2024-00695 against Cisco Systems. The owner contends the Board’s sua sponte arguments merit a higher‑level review.
Charter Communications, Inc.vsIarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SEvsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE challenged The Johns Hopkins University's claims regarding FAP-α targeting moieties based on obviousness and patentability issues (103/112). The Board instituted the PGR, finding that the claims face significant challenges related to enablement and indefiniteness.
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.