Short Summary
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and Pensando Systems, Inc. have submitted a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,985,943, which claims a programmable logic device architecture for data‑flow processing in user‑configurable servers. The petition identifies seven statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, targeting all 18 claims with prior‑art references that disclose FPGA partitioning, lockable bridges, analytics, configurable ports, and power‑management features. Petitioner also contends that discretionary denial under §314(a) (Fintiv) and §325(d) is unwarranted, emphasizing that the cited references were not considered during prosecution. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage, awaiting a decision on institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. vs XtreamEdge, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.vsEvolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Evolution Malta Limited's patent (10629024), challenging claims related to internet-based wagering. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'payout,' finding that prior art reference Kido anticipates several key claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB found all twenty challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning backside metal adhesion. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's position that the claim language does not require strict direct contact for 'on a bottom surface.'
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for Samsung and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia's '808 patent, asserting that its skip coding mode is obvious over existing prior art references. The challenge focuses on whether combining zero-motion vector (ZMV) and non-zero motion vector (PNZMV) modes constitutes a predictable combination of known techniques in video compression. This dispute involves complex technical arguments regarding standard-setting technologies.
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.