Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC

IPR2025-01010

Google LLC filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’322 patent covering CDN edge‑server selection. The petition relies on Verma and other prior‑art references under §§102 and 103.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01010
Filing Date
23 May 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01038

Canadian Solar Inc. et al.vsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.

patentIPR2024-00577

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company

The Noco Company seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its USB‑charging jump‑starter patent claims unpatentable. It argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by ignoring the core dispute over charging feasibility. The petition targets the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion.

patentIPR2024-00463

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

Ilooda Co. challenges Serendia's patent (10869812) in an IPR based on anticipation and obviousness, focusing on microneedling technology. The petitioner argues that prior art references like Mehta render multiple claims unpatentable through various combinations of elements.

patentIPR2024-01312

Biofrontera Incorporated et al.vsSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

Sun Pharmaceutical seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found several claims of its photodynamic‑therapy device patent unpatentable, arguing the Board mis‑constructed key claim terms and ignored ITC findings.

patentIPR2025-00959

Carbyne, Inc. et al.vsTritech Software Systems et al.

The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.

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