Short Summary
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’463 patent covering situational networks, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of location‑based social networking technologies.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2026‑00112, Meta Platforms, Inc. seeks inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,463 owned by SitNet, LLC. The petitioner contends that claims 1‑12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because the combination of earlier patents and publications—Kraft with Altman; Wong with Gogic and Gage; and Wong with Gogic, Gage, and Kraft—teach every limitation of the asserted method for forming a situational network and delivering supplemental information. An expert declaration supports the argument that the patent merely recites conventional database, geolocation, and notification functions without any technical contribution. The petition asks the Board to cancel all claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Meta Platforms, Inc. vs SitNet, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.
Tesla successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent 10,829,002, challenging claims related to vehicle destination prediction and power management.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
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.