Mobile communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
21 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 21 total
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of U.S. Patent 12,131,357, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art web‑media platforms (Fosnacht) combined with native‑app techniques (Kirkpatrick) and advertising methods (Sharma). The petition meets all procedural requirements and seeks institution of the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition to invalidate Weple IP Holdings' 12‑billion‑dollar streaming‑media patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over earlier web‑video and native‑app patents. The petition outlines three grounds of obviousness and discusses discretionary denial issues.
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Weple IP's 12,112,357 patent covering mobile streaming media. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over Fosnacht, Kirkpatrick, and Sharma references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple reached a settlement, prompting the Commission to dismiss the case without further review.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple filed a joint motion to end the case based on a settlement. The Commission found no reason to deny the motion and declined to review the initial determination.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,271,877, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Rossmann, Himmel, King, and Boyle. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all 19 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Hermes’s ’720 patent covering idle‑screen management on mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Hawkins, Majava and Nielsen.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 and 7‑20 of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bast, Wedel, Benoit and Jambhekar.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent covering buttonless touchscreen phones, asserting obviousness over Pensjo and related references.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR against Headwater Research's patent 10,749,700. The motion relies on statutory confidentiality provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung's request for Director Review of PTAB institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 9,245,826 patent, was denied. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Varia Holdings LLC regarding RFID/Bluetooth integration has been instituted by the PTAB. The Board found sufficient grounds to proceed, focusing on obviousness over prior art combining Bluetooth transceivers and headsets.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of an IPR against Varia Holdings LLC's patent (9405947). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable over prior art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Varia Holdings LLC's RFID patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was unpatentable. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Willgert and Mooney.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 39 claims of patent 8127984 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the claimed 'functional emulation' was obvious when combining prior art references like Willgert and Mooney.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 32 claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board concluded that the combination of Willgert and Mooney, often combined with Holloway and Pitroda, rendered the claimed RFID emulation/voice calling technology obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against Cerence Operating Company, arguing that the patent claims related to SMS audio messaging were obvious over prior art references including Dolan and Freedman. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, moving the case into active litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung and Google's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341 concerning patent 8,406,733.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google filed a second IPR petition challenging all claims of Headwater Research's patent, but the USPTO denied institution based on a post‑filing PO stipulation. The petitioners request Director review, arguing the denial misapplies § 314(a) and threatens broader litigation.
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.