Short Summary
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-00241, Cisco Systems, Inc. challenges six claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,441,721, which cover a matrix‑multiplication technique for determining Raman pump power settings in wavelength‑division‑multiplexed optical fiber systems. Cisco asserts that the method was already disclosed in the Sugaya publication, rendering the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that the combination of Sugaya with Farmer’s teachings further anticipates the same claims. The petition details the technical background, the prior‑art references, and argues that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors and § 325(d) is inappropriate, seeking institution of the IPR.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. vs WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al.vsPolaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital seek to invalidate Polaris PowerLED's ’085 flash‑memory patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art ECC techniques. They request institution and argue discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
Microchip Technology, Inc.vsAptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
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.