Executive Summary
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. vs Cobblestone Wireless LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Docker Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
Docker has filed an IPR petition against Intellectual Ventures' U.S. Patent 8,332,844 covering a block‑level branching store file system, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑27 on the basis of obviousness over four prior‑art combinations.
Generac Power Systems, Inc.vsPSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 27 claims of U.S. Patent 11,967,857 covering backup‑power load control. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references and defines key terms to support its position.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00935, leaving the institution standing.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
Apple Inc.vsS.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged WLAN routing claims non‑obvious, emphasizing that unclaimed details like transcoding are routine. The Director’s request for review was denied, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
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.