Short Summary
ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00304, ASUSTek Computer Inc. moved to withdraw its petition challenging VideoLabs, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 8,291,236. The request follows the termination of three related Roku IPRs (IPR2024-01023 to -01025) after a settlement, which the Board noted makes ASUS's joinder motions moot and potentially bars the petitions under 35 U.S.C. §315(b). Citing its discretion under 37 C.F.R. §42.71(a), ASUS seeks dismissal to preserve Board resources. The motion was filed on February 27, 2025, and is pending Board action.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in ASUSTek Computer Inc. vs VideoLabs, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NVIDIA CorporationvsNeural AI, LLC
The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01194) involving Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,049,652 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of key mutants. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
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.