Short Summary
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies’ 2012 media‑server patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑01277), Google LLC challenges the validity of every claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,230,101, which covers a server device for media streaming and storage management. The petitioner contends that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of multiple prior‑art references—including Sloss, Lamkin, Rou, Chamberlain, Roden, Van Hoff, Ito, Rathbone, and Harris—none of which were considered during prosecution. Google argues that the examiner’s omission constitutes a material error and urges the PTAB to institute the proceeding and find the claims unpatentable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google LLC vs Advanced Coding Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SEvsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al.vsCole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Cole Haan’s shoe‑midsole design patent (D768,969), arguing it is anticipated and obvious over several publicly available shoe designs.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Henri Daussi, LLCvsECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with patent owner ECNA, LLC. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties seek termination of the proceeding.
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.