Roku, Inc. v. VideoLabs, Inc.

IPR2025-00071

Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00071
Filing Date
11 November 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00969

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al.vsForas Technologies Ltd.

ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.

patentIPR2025-00261

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al.vsKyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The Board issued key claim constructions regarding 'lifter' and 'gas pressure system,' paving the way for trial.

patentIPR2025-01406

Google LLC et al.vsART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 5‑11 of ART Research’s ’442 patent covering video‑annotation interfaces, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-00795

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.

patentIPR2024-00559

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya LLC

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Staton Techiya regarding U.S. Patent 11,610,587, focusing on audio management and sonic signature detection.

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