Executive Summary
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED
Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully overcame the Patent Owner's attempt to deny the IPR, leading to the institution of the case against Apex Beam Technologies LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Apple can prove obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Cirik and Wu.
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.