CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v. Belden Canada ULC et al.

IPR2024-01227

CommScope and others challenged Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter. The petitioner focuses heavily on how these existing designs meet specific structural limitations of the patented technology.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01227
Filing Date
26 July 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00553

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.vsGreenthread, LLC

Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.

patentIPR2024-00460

lululemon usa inc. et al.vsNike, Inc.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art (Nishida and Zuckerman) anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed textile manufacturing methods, specifically regarding simultaneous knitting and planar configuration.

patentIPR2024-00828

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.

The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.

patentIPR2024-00839

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al.vsLumenco, LLC

The PTAB found several claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art, specifically targeting anti-counterfeiting micro mirror technology. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12–20 were deemed obvious based on the combination of Fuhse847 and Rich.

patentIPR2025-01161

Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC

The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.

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