Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Dialect, LLC

IPR2025-01332

Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 8,447,607 patent covering multimodal speech processing. The challenger relies on Maes, Coffman and Ittycheriah references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges the Board to institute the IPR.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01332
Filing Date
25 July 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentPGR2025-00029

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.vsSciencons AS et al.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.

patentIPR2025-00267

Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation

Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.

patentIPR2024-00829

Applied Concepts Inc.vsKustom Signals Inc.

Applied Concepts Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed traffic speed detection features are predictable combinations of existing prior art references.

patentIPR2024-01253

Hulu, LLC et al.vsPiranha Media Distribution, LLC

Hulu successfully petitioned against Piranha Media Distribution's patent, arguing that key digital advertising insertion claims are obvious over prior art. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits for at least one claim.

patentIPR2025-00915

Intel Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

The PTAB issued an Institution Decision in the Intel vs. Advanced Cluster Systems IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over combinations of prior art references. This decision targets 30 claims related to cluster computing and parallel processing technologies.

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