Short Summary
Digital Global Systems petitions to invalidate DeepSig’s 10,581,469 patent covering machine‑learning‑based radio predistortion. The challenger asserts obviousness over earlier AI‑enabled predistortion disclosures (Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa) under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑00049, Digital Global Systems, Inc. seeks inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,581,469 owned by DeepSig, Inc. The petition challenges claims 1‑8, 10, 12‑15, and 17‑24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, arguing that the combination of Jüschke’s pre‑distortion neural‑network processor (EP 2,538,553 A1) with Holt’s loss‑function training methods (U.S. Pat. 10,552,738) would have been obvious to a POSITA. For claims 2, 22, and 24, the petition adds Dzierwa’s RF‑environment optimization (U.S. Pat. 10,122,479) to the obviousness argument. No claim constructions are required. The petitioner requests the Board institute the proceeding and cancel the challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Digital Global Systems, Inc. vs DeepSig Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al.vsTecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully challenged the '108 patent's claims in a PTAB institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for Claim 1. The Board affirmed that prior art disclosure was sufficient to support the enrichment limitation using Meyer et al.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' 11,959,533 patent covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The petition asserts that all 25 claims are obvious under §103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations and argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv and Becton factors.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Volex plcvsCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Credo’s 11,032,111 patent, asserting that prior‑art active‑cable and adaptive‑pre‑equalization references make the claims obvious under §103.
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.