Short Summary
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition against Edge Networking’s ’095 patent covering distributed software‑defined networking. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Vasell and related OSGi literature and opposes discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025‑00617), Microsoft Corporation challenges claims 1‑2, 6‑8, 10‑13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,893,095, titled “Distributed Software Defined Networking.” The challenger asserts that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as they are obvious in view of the Vasell patent (U.S. Pat. No. 6,496,575) combined with the teachings of Alves, Hall, and Rellermeyer, which collectively disclose all claim limitations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors and §325(d) would be inappropriate, requesting the Board to institute the IPR and 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 Microsoft Corporation vs Edge Networking Systems, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsBrodTi Inc.
Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied BOE Technology Group’s request for rehearing of its denied institution of an IPR on claims 7‑13 and 15‑20 of U.S. Patent 9,557,606. The Board held that the petitioner failed to define “wiring line” and did not show a reasonable likelihood of success.
RegenX Science Inc.vsNeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.vsMedline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard seeks an IPR of Medline’s ’347 patent covering urinary catheter trays, challenging claims 1‑8, 10‑11, 13‑20 as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary factors do not favor denial and requests institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.
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.