Telecommunications — US PTAB Patent Cases
59 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 59 total
Apple Inc. v.--
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Belden Canada ULC's patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation over prior art references including Fukui. The Board found Petitioner’s arguments persuasive regarding the technical scope of the modular fiber optic cassette system.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422 B2 is likely unpatentable over prior art references Fukui and Sedor. The Board instituted the IPR on all 47 challenged claims based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding VoIP bandwidth management claims. The Board found that Cisco demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications, Inc. failed to invalidate 13 claims covering Passive Optical Networks (PON) and multicast encryption technologies before the PTAB. The Board denied institution based on insufficient evidence showing obviousness over prior art including RFCs and Murakami.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB instituted the IPR for Charter Communications against Iarnach Technologies, finding sufficient evidence that claims of Patent No. 9287982 are obvious over various prior art references (Bernstein, Tsuge, MEF 6.1). The Board addressed numerous claim construction issues, confirming some preambles were limiting while others were not.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
The PTAB denied Cisco Systems' IPR petition against Scale Video Coding LLC, finding the asserted claims were not reasonably likely to be unpatentable over prior art references. The decision focused on technical limitations regarding bandwidth identification in video routers.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully argued that multiple claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent were unpatentable over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath, specifically regarding network routing and bandwidth allocation. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering location services and tracking. The Board found sufficient evidence of non-obviousness, despite parallel district court litigation, leading to the institution of all 30 claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Mullen Industries' patent '11096039', demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board favorably construed key terms, finding that 'location access rights' encompass group permissions, which supports the Petitioner's case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against KP Innovations was denied institution by the PTAB, despite arguments of anticipation and obviousness. The Board cited concerns over inefficient use of time and resources to decline institution, though a dissent argued for prevailing likelihood.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s attempt to challenge Maxell, Ltd.'s patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that proceeding with the review would be inefficient due to the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and TCL's late filing.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's second IPR petition against Entropic's wideband receiver patent (11785275), citing the existence of a first, already-instituted parallel proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The denial upheld prior decisions that had not instituted trials on the challenged patents.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Tesla's patent (6894639) after reviewing the case, citing inconsistent claim construction arguments made by Tesla in district court versus before the PTAB.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries regarding patent 11246024. The denial affirms the initial decision not to institute trial.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems in an IPR against XtreamEdge, finding they failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board specifically rejected arguments that prior art references taught the specific bandwidth determination limitations of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple Inc. successfully requested institution of an IPR against Ziklag IP LLC's patent, asserting that claims are obvious over prior art references Yurt and Logan. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that their challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board denied institution because the Petitioners could not provide sufficient rational underpinning against prior art references like Bruner and Clark, particularly regarding technical limitations.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner presented multiple grounds combining prior art references like Renken, Maycock, Kidambi, and Zhang. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Soto, Alexander et al.
AT&T Corp. et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against the '754 Patent, challenging 30 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The Board found strong merits in the petition, noting that the combination of prior art references was highly relevant to Passive Optical Networks (PONs).
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC has initiated a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787 held by Songbird Tech, LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims covering voice messaging and web communication systems are unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This challenge targets fundamental components like audio encoding/decoding and browser-resident applications.
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.