Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 46 · 1,362 total
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner in its challenge to patent 11031677, which covers multifunction wireless devices and antenna design. The grounds included anticipation (103) and written description/enablement issues related to prior art like Baliarda-543.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00888 and related cases, upholding the original decision.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its LTE/5G patent, arguing lack of obviousness and settled industry expectations. The Board affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution in an IPR concerning its LTE/5G patents, arguing the petitioner’s prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that there is no material examiner error.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s LTE‑Advanced CSI‑RS patent. The petition argues the decision misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA. It also points to examiner error in claim interpretation.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO Director denied OnePlus's request for review of the denial to institute inter partes review against Pantech patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 8,995,372, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references covering carrier‑aggregation random access.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes in a series of inter partes reviews covering U.S. Patent No. 11,716,816, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was designated confidential business information.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,989,944 as confidential business information, limiting its disclosure.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against its mobile‑data patent. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and statutory violations, and references a prior settlement that terminated a related IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations justified the denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patents.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ ‘348 patent intact. The Board emphasized settled expectations and the lack of new legal arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,609,527 as confidential business information, limiting public access.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 9,922,348. The denial leaves the earlier institution outcomes unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile device content sharing, asserting obviousness over prior Symbian forum and gaming system references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’348 patent, arguing they are obvious over early web‑community and proxy‑server references. The petition also challenges the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,769,316, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR before the Board decided any merits.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,769,316. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR filed by Intel (challenger) against AX Wireless’s ’272 patent covering OFDM header‑repetition techniques, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Hansen, WWiSE, and Choi references.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless have settled their Wi‑Fi patent dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties seek to avoid further litigation costs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 69 claims of the ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens prior art relating to Bluetooth beacon and proximity services.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344, which covers Bluetooth beacon‑based proximity services. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon functionality in mobile devices. The challenger relies on obviousness arguments based on Ribaudo and its combination with Watanabe, Behrens, and Mgrdechian. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment has filed an IPR petition challenging AX Wireless’s 10,917,272 patent covering OFDM header repetition. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of the Hansen patent, the July 2005 WWiSE proposal, and Choi’s repetition‑coding publication under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute asks the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR brought by Samsung, arguing that all challenged patents share the same 802.11ax Wi‑Fi technology and therefore do not meet the “diverse range of subject matter” standard.
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.