Executive Summary
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
Related Cases
Canadian Solar Inc. et al.vsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar successfully instituted its IPR against Maxeon Solar regarding solar cell fabrication technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for several claims over various combinations of prior art, authorizing trial on multiple claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.vsUMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge UMBRA Technologies' patent (10630505) on grounds of obviousness. The Board found the Petition particularly strong in merits, leading to institution and advancing a key dispute over network routing technology.
Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged the patentability of a wideband receiver system used in cable TV reception. The petitioner argues that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Cholas, Petrovic, Lee, and Takahiko. This petition seeks to invalidate the patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds.
Visa, Inc.vsCortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of Cortex MCP's claims (1-17) related to electronic credentials and tokenization. The Board rejected arguments that the claimed features were obvious over prior art references like Oborne, Neafsey, and Stafford.
WIZ, Inc.vsOrca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11663031) in cybersecurity/cloud computing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references Veselov and Price.
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.