IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 193 of 218 · 6,517 total
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review of an IPR where the PTAB declared all 18 claims of its cable‑broadband patent unpatentable. The owner alleges procedural abuse, invented arguments, and inconsistent rulings with a related IPR. It requests reversal and termination of the proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast rejects Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits in IPR2024-00435, arguing the request is untimely after final decisions.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast argues that Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision should be denied because the Patent Owner failed to provide relevant evidence and raised no valid procedural or legal grounds.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to submit new exhibits after PTAB final decisions, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The petition seeks denial of the exhibit submission.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast submits an authorized response urging denial of Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, asserting no abuse of discretion and that the Board’s explanation of the Zhang reference satisfies the required memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications requests Director review of a PTAB decision that found its television channel‑selection patent unpatentable. The owner argues the Board ignored prior examiner and reexamination findings, violating a recent Director memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00432 (and related IPRs), leaving the Board's original decision in place.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast successfully opposed Entropic’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision already met procedural requirements and that Entropic’s late arguments were waived. The request was denied.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that found Entropic Communications’ channel‑selection patent invalid. The Patent Owner argues the Board ignored earlier reexamination findings on the same Zhang reference, violating the Director’s memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits after PTAB final decisions in three IPRs, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The board has been asked to deny the request.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications has requested Director Review of the IPR involving Comcast’s challenge to patent 11,381,866. Comcast may file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days, and no additional briefing is permitted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO Director denied Comcast's request for a Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00441 concerning Entropic Communications' patent 8,792,008.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '738 patent owned by Immersion Corporation, focusing on haptic feedback systems. The petitioner argues that various prior art references, including Pratt and Ku, anticipate or render the challenged claims obvious under 102 and 103. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in consumer electronics technology.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation filed a Petition challenging 13 claims of Resonant Systems' U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that the claimed linear vibration actuators are predictable combinations of prior art in haptics and control systems.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 covering vibration generation/haptics technology. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on combinations of prior art references like Houston and Goldenberg.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 regarding linear vibration actuators used in haptics/feedback devices. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a detailed examination of the patent's validity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '008 patent claims, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art references like Renken and Cholas. The PTAB institution decision recognized the compelling unpatentability challenges presented by Comcast regarding signal monitoring technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic Communications' patent (US 11399206) in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner argues that the claimed wideband receiver methods are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic 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.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications (Petitioner) challenges the validity of Entropic's patent, asserting that the claimed method for receiving digitized television signals is anticipated and obvious. The petition relies heavily on prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey to demonstrate multiple grounds of invalidity under 102 and 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully requested the institution of an IPR against Entropic Communications' '866 Patent, challenging all 82 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner asserts that numerous elements are disclosed by prior art references like Pugel, Crols, Chandrakasan, and Jensen ’170.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11,381,866) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combining Cholas and Petrovic with references like Rabaey, Maalej, Lee, and Takahiko to demonstrate non-patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's wideband receiver patent (9210362) in an IPR, arguing the claimed digital signal processing methods are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Pugel and Crols to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR challenging the validity of Entropic's wideband receiver system patent (9210362). The petitioner argues that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references like Petrovic and Eidson.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (9210362) in an IPR, asserting that the wideband receiver architecture is anticipated or obvious. The petitioner relies on various prior art references, including Zhang and Mirabbasi, to invalidate claims covering digital signal processing methods.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent covering haptic feedback systems. The Board found sufficient persuasive evidence that Valve could prevail on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Pratt and Ku.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation lost their IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc., regarding vibration module technology. The PTAB denied the petition because the prior art did not teach the necessary algorithmic structure for the claimed control component.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00569, finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenged claims regarding vibration modules and actuators. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (Resonant Systems) by upholding the requirement for an algorithmic step in the 'control component' structure.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment's IPR challenge against Resonant Systems was denied by the PTAB, finding that Sony failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any challenged claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's view regarding the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure for obviousness.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.