Executive Summary
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
Related Cases
Alpinestars S.p.A et al.vsDainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al.'s IPR challenge against Dainese's inflatable safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, despite arguments regarding obviousness over prior art combinations.
Microsoft CorporationvsProxense, LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense's patent 8646042, asserting that the claims are obvious over various prior art references including Giobbi and Broadcom. The petitioner argues that combining disclosures of PDKs and RDCs makes the claimed hybrid device predictable for proximity-based access control.
fuboTV Media Inc.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the adaptive bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 to invalidate the patent.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00109 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al.vsZiklag IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon Web Services' IPR against Ziklag IP regarding patent 6182128, allowing the review to proceed.
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.