Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
415 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 14 · 415 total
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Skyworks Solutions, Inc., asserting that several claims related to RF switches and semiconductor devices are unpatentable. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103) over prior art references Huang and Seshimo.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. faced denial in an IPR proceeding against Collision Communications, Inc., regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found no reasonable likelihood that Samsung could overcome the obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia regarding video compression methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Nokia's video encoding patent (9571833). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly those combining Rusert and Zheng.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
T-Mobile USA's IPR challenge against Aspen Networks regarding VoIP network routing claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically concerning how SIP signaling sequences are maintained across network handoffs.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum for patent 11770313, citing the advanced scheduling and substantial investment in a parallel district court lawsuit.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Collision Communications, citing the Fintiv factors. The Board found that scheduling proximity and significant investment weighed heavily in favor of denying institution despite allegations of obviousness.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR because the efficiency of ongoing parallel district court litigation outweighed the merits of the patent claims. The denial was based on the discretionary Fintiv factors, despite strong arguments from the petitioner regarding the lack of prior consideration for the grounds.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google challenged Multifold's patent claims regarding multi-screen device interfaces under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully secured institution in this IPR against Multifold International regarding dual screen image capture technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, despite the Patent Owner's arguments for narrow claim construction.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Motorola and Google against Multifold, challenging 11 claims of patent 9058153. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners would prevail on unpatentability grounds based on prior art.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing the Fintiv factors and lack of compelling merits despite strong arguments regarding network optimization technology.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment regarding network performance patents. The Board cited the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline as a key factor favoring denial.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DH International Ltd's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Suga in view of Gorsuch. The Board preliminarily construed key terms like 'invariable activation command,' finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding a wideband receiver patent. The denial was based on the existence of another parallel petition covering the same claims.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
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.