Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, Google LLC challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,057,322 owned by Sandpiper CDN, LLC. The ’322 patent claims methods for selecting an edge server in a content delivery network and delivering modified embedded resources. Google contends that the patent’s claims are anticipated or obvious in light of the Verma publication and combinations of Verma with Raciborski, Lewin, and Drai, invoking statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103. The petition requests that the PTAB institute review and find all fifteen claims unpatentable, and includes a declaration from expert Todd C. Mowry, Ph.D. The proceeding is at the petition stage, with the Board’s discretionary factors under §§314 and 325 noted as favorable to institution.
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 Sandpiper CDN, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,110,520 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The Board has not yet ruled.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al.vsLiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Dell Technologies Inc., finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Lane and Fujinawa. The Board determined the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any ground, upholding the patent's validity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.
Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
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.