Short Summary
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's patent (US 10135682) via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The challenger relies on numerous grounds combining references like Cooper-Saey and Prodan-Jalali to demonstrate predictability in wireless communications technology.
Detailed Summary
Comcast Cable Communications filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Entropic Communications, LLC regarding patent US 10135682, challenging all 18 claims based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed invention is merely a predictable combination of known prior art elements from sources such as Cooper-Saey, Prodan-Jalali, and Monk. Specific grounds detail how combining CMTS technology (Prodan) with OFDM techniques (Jalali) or worst-case SNR metrics (Cooper/Gross) renders various claims obvious. Although the proceeding against Charter Communications was terminated by settlement, this IPR continues to challenge the validity of Entropic's patent portfolio in the wireless communications space.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Comcast Corporation et al. vs Entropic Communications LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'virtual detent,' defining it as vibrotactile feedback that simulates mechanical resistance, and found anticipation in Rosenberg I for all claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al.vsSmart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate Smart RF’s U.S. Patent 10,958,296 covering a multi‑band digital predistortion linearizer. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali and request the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,852,789 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding. The settlement agreement will be filed confidentially.
Google LLCvs--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Headwater Research’s ’564 patent covering a mobile device with secure MMS messaging. The petition relies on obviousness arguments combining TS‑23.140, Rakic and several other references.
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.