Executive Summary
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Related Cases
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial of an IPR on a semiconductor patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and the petition defective. The Board’s decision remains pending.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 21 challenged claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C. were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board determined that prior art, specifically Leaning and Gamble, taught or rendered the claimed Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) technology obvious.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s cybersecurity patent (12001549) because the petitioner, Orca Security Ltd., maintained inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal forums.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01274 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’992 hydraulic fracturing patent. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek dismissal of the related district‑court case as well.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC
The USPTO denied DISH Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' video‑compression 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.