US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 318 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01369
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01366
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01368
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
patent denied · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01369
Samsung's IPR petition against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board determined that the proximity to a parallel district court trial date weighed heavily in favor of discretionary denial under Fintiv factors.
patent denied · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01367
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition due to concerns over parallel district court litigation and duplicative efforts. The Board found that the central technical issue remained identical, despite petitioner concessions regarding trial timing.
patent denied · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01368
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
patent denied · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01366
Samsung Electronics sought to invalidate Secure Wi-Fi LLC's patent (9717005) via IPR, alleging obviousness in Wi-Fi network security claims. The PTAB denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), finding that factors weighed against proceeding despite the petitioner's arguments.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless have settled their dispute over a multicast patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite public policy and statutory authority to end the review.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson and Nokia jointly moved to terminate an IPR over Active Wireless's 5G PUCCH patent after reaching settlement agreements with the patent owner. The Board was asked to end the proceeding because the merits had not yet been decided and public policy favors settlement.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless have filed a joint motion to keep their 5G patent settlement materials confidential under applicable statutes. The request cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and argues it is timely.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
AT&T and other telecom operators seek Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against ASUS’s 5G QoS patent, alleging the panel ignored prior‑art disclosures and expert testimony.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia, together with patent owner Active Wireless Technologies, filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the materials from the public PTAB file.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also deemed business‑confidential.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR disputes with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the three pending reviews and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
patent denied · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia filed a Petition challenging claims related to Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) Single-Cell Multicast Service (SC-PTM). The petitioners assert that the challenged technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Shin '094 and 3GPP standards.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson and Nokia filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,601,566, asserting that its PUCCH configuration claims are obvious over existing LTE and NR prior art. The petition targets multiple claims by combining references such as Kim, Gao, R1-1710555, and Huang.
patent null · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 regarding Active-Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD). The petitioner asserts that all three claimed elements are obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This filing initiates a formal PTAB proceeding against the patent owner.
patent denied · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
patent instituted · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
