Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 46 · 1,362 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless was rejected. The Board held that Samsung waived procedural arguments and that the discretionary denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs. The company argues that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial and reinstatement of its petitions.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, arguing that the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPR petitions violates due process and the APA after the USPTO retroactively rescinded the Vidal Memo. The company contends the Board ignored its timely Sotera stipulation, which should have shielded the petitions from denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPRs, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and patent owner ASSIA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,991,122 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00493 concerning patent 7,502,348. The decision upholds the earlier refusal to institute the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung and several major carriers settled their inter partes review of Headwater’s wireless patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata Manufacturing’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing a holistic assessment and the Fintiv factors.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, arguing that retroactive policy changes violated due process. The petition focuses on the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses in a parallel ITC case and the newly‑created “settled expectations” doctrine.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations and Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance on Sotera stipulations.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Murata’s challenge to Georgia Tech’s ’914 patent, finding no legal error in the decision.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against a Georgia Tech RF amplifier patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and ignored strong merits and Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR challenging Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent. They argue the denial misapplied statutory frameworks and ignored a Sotera stipulation.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks successfully defended its wireless front‑end module patent as the PTAB denied institution of the IPR. The Board cited all six Fintiv factors and the patent owner’s settled expectations to justify the discretionary denial.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR covering Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the Director ignored the patent’s recent issuance, lack of commercialization, and the Sotera stipulation, and misapplied Fintiv factors.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s 2015 noise‑reduction patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the petitioner failed to overcome settled‑expectations and the discretionary standards under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the denial ignored settled‑expectations guidance, Fintiv factors, and a Sotera stipulation, and was applied retroactively after the Vidal Memo was rescinded.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.
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.