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
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found that the patent claims were unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed invention by teaching all elements, leading to a final decision against the patent owner.
Hisense USA Corp. et al.vsLight Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsFractus, S.A.
A confidential settlement agreement was filed, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDamaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Microsoft CorporationvsEyesMatch Ltd.
Court decision.
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.