Executive Summary
Cisco and Fortinet seek a Director Review of a PTAB decision upholding InfoExpress’s network‑authentication patent. They contend the Board improperly allowed incorporation‑by‑reference arguments, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the challengers. The petition asks the Director to vacate and remand the decision.
Related Cases
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for a review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in four Halozyme patent cases, leaving the institution findings intact.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al.vsTouchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect files an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Porter prior art issue was already rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s ’714 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under §314(a).
Ericsson Inc et al.vsHeadwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 9,094,868, arguing that the invention is obvious over earlier patents by Jarvinen and Fox. The petition seeks institution of an inter‑partes review and cancellation of the claims.
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.