Communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
25 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 25 total
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google’s request for Director Review of an IPR against SoundClear’s LED‑notification patent was denied. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and Fintiv factors justified the discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s decision to refer the matter to the district court, leaving HBCU Messaging’s patent intact.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The Director denied Apple Inc.'s request for review of the PTAB's denial of institution in three IPRs against HBCU Messaging, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Credo’s 11,032,111 patent, asserting that prior‑art active‑cable and adaptive‑pre‑equalization references make the claims obvious under §103.
Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of CText IP's messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Chang, Oh, and Stochosky. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement that terminated the IPR challenge to patent 11,687,971 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,443,344 after reaching a license agreement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet instituted the review, so termination is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies reached a settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-01049 before trial. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate three pending IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned against Barco N.V.'s patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted trial on all 18 claims based on the combination of Beel and Christison prior art references.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,055,023 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, which had not yet been instituted.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Barco N.V., challenging patent 11422951 on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Uchida and Grimshaw, leading to the continuation of the dispute.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established a motivation to combine prior art elements, particularly regarding local user control over shared content.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Dish Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' broadband patent. The denial leaves the original institution decision intact.
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.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast's request for a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute its IPR against Entropic Communications was denied, leaving the original denial intact.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s petition argues the PTAB correctly applied Rabenko’s disclosure to find the ’775 patent claims unpatentable. The Board’s reasoning was sound, and the Director Review request is denied.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Intellectual Ventures was rejected. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
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.