Element TV Company, LP et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

IPR2025-01068

Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’321 video‑coding patent, asserting that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1, the Kim patent, and Yagasaki. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01068
Filing Date
6 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01221

Early Warning Services, LLCvsIntellectual Ventures II LLC

The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.

patentIPR2024-00758

Qorvo, Inc.vsCornell Research Foundation Inc.

Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.

patentIPR2024-01132

BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences LLC

Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.

patentIPR2025-00027

QIAGEN Sciences, LLCvsTecan Group AG

The Director denied QIAGEN's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00027, leaving the institution standing. No patentability arguments were revisited.

patentIPR2025-01206

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs and PGRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent Revvo precedent.

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