Executive Summary
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Related Cases
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Entropic’s ’275 patent covering a digital TV receiver, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Microsoft CorporationvsEyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.
Apple Inc. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.
Avanos Medical, Inc.vsStratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1-17 and 48-52 are unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Racz, Fitz, Lee) was an obvious modification to create functional RF neurotomy devices.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsOptronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 5 and 6 of patent 7168842 unpatentable based on anticipation (Uekusa) and obviousness (Uekusa/Isoda). Claims 7-9 were not proven unpatentable due to claim clarity issues.
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.