Short Summary
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 10,165,324. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that those references were never considered during prosecution.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2026-00056, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,165,324 owned by Adeia Guides Inc. The petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1‑6, asserting that each claim is obvious in view of specific prior‑art combinations: Tecot with Lee (claims 1‑5), Tecot‑Lee with McElhatten (claim 6), Logan with Poslinski (claims 1‑5), and Logan‑Poslinski with McElhatten (claim 6). The petition further contends that these references were not considered during the patent’s prosecution, constituting a material error. Supporting declarations from Dr. Henry Houh are submitted, and detailed claim constructions are provided for three disputed terms. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC vs Adeia Guides Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioner Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges 20 claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '234 Patent based on obviousness (103). The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, particularly Leaning, Klements, and Gamble, to show that the adaptive bitrate content streaming technology was already known.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Statistical analysis of PTAB IPR decisions from 2020‑2025 shows an increase in rulings that find at least one claim unpatentable, driven by both §102 and §103 grounds.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has responded to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that its compliance with a Fintiv stipulation makes the request moot. The Board had already instituted the IPR on the patent, and Samsung seeks denial of the review so the proceeding can continue.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al.vsTrina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
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.