Executive 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.
Related Cases
Askeladden L.L.C.vsCalabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310, arguing that claims 1-4 are anticipated (102) or obvious (103). The PTAB institution of review allows the challenger to proceed with its core arguments regarding payment authorization novelty.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Intel Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against FaceTec, Inc., regarding facial recognition technology patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, despite patent owner arguments concerning prior art and related litigation.
TikTok Inc.vsDiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
TikTok has filed a petition to invalidate all 26 claims of DiStefano’s ’316 patent, asserting obviousness over Block, Arnold, Arora, and Ahlberg references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
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.