Short Summary
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 9,571,833 patent on HEVC motion‑vector prediction, arguing obviousness over Rusert/Zheng and Nakamura/WD4 and disputing the examiner’s allowance.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2024-01505, Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliate challenge Nokia Technologies Oy’s U.S. Patent No. 9,571,833, which claims improvements in de‑duplicating motion‑vector prediction candidates for HEVC video coding. The petitioner relies on two statutory grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining the Rusert and Zheng disclosures (Ground 1) and the Nakamura and WD4 disclosures (Ground 2). The petition argues that these references were not considered during prosecution, that the examiner’s allowance was erroneous, and that a denial would be improper under Sec. 314(a) and Sec. 325(d). No institution decision has been made yet.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amazon.com, Inc. et al. vs Nokia Technologies Oy is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLightvsPathway IP LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for ClearCorrect against Align Technology regarding a dental aligner patent (11,648,090). The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over prior art references.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB decided to institute trial on all challenged claims of the '921 patent, despite preliminary evidence not supporting anticipation over Schaffer. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'filament' but ultimately found that the claim language required flexibility based on intrinsic and extrinsic teachings.
Google LLCvsSonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition against Sonos’s 11,080,001 patent covering multi-room audio synchronization, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
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.