Short Summary
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑9 and 15‑19 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’890 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Takashi, Sato, and Ho references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed TOSA features were known in the industry prior to filing.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2026-00122, Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,714,890 owned by Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. The petitioner contends that claims 1‑9 and 15‑19 are unpatentable because they are either anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication JP 2010‑161146 (Takashi) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or rendered obvious by combinations of Takashi with U.S. Patent No. 9,385,830 (Sato) and U.S. Patent No. 9,306,671 (Ho) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition highlights the lack of an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution and argues that vertically‑mounted monitor photodiodes and related TOSA configurations were conventional in optical transceiver design well before the ’890 patent’s effective filing date. The Board is asked to institute the IPR and ultimately 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 Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. vs Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for Jumio Corporation's IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11,157,606). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding obviousness over prior art references like Derakhshani and Zhang.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that earlier patents by Mgrdechian and others anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8.
UiPath, Inc.vsRule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Rule 14’s ’679 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Fintiv factors preclude discretionary denial and includes a stipulation against parallel district‑court litigation.
Volex plcvsCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and emphasizes that no merits decision has been rendered.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al.vsApplied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,379,301 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by prior‑art references Shen and Soldano. The petition stresses that these references were not used during prosecution and requests the Board to institute review.
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.