Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
415 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 14 · 415 total
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution for several IPR petitions filed by Snap Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy, meaning no trial will proceed.
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.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Fractus's patent covering antenna design/MFWD technology. Petitioner Geotab Inc. et al. asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), challenging 20 claims based on prior art including Dou, Jing, and Baliarda-543. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, moving forward with the trial preparation phase.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, challenging claims related to OFDMA scheduling and parameter switching.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Wilus Institute's patent claims (1-14) for obviousness over prior art related to Wi-Fi signaling standards. The PTAB found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting the IPR on all 14 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Wilus Institute's patent 11716171, challenging claims 1-16 based on obviousness over Kim and Chu/Choi. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung could prove unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Board denied institution for the IPR challenge brought by Snap, Inc. against Nokia's patent 8175148.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung successfully secured institution for its IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 12114177. The trial is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent 11108595. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and favorable regarding Fintiv factors.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T and other carriers challenged Daingean Technologies' patent (US 10,932,207) in an IPR petition. The challengers argue that the claims related to random access procedures and power control are anticipated or obvious by prior art references Lee1 and Lee2.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and other petitioners filed an opening petition challenging 7177369's validity on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The challenges focus heavily on the combination of prior art references (Wong, Minn, Lehne) to invalidate claims related to OFDM channel estimation and smart antenna technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung challenges Headwater Research's '733 Patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art standards (TS-23.140 and Ogawa). The petition asserts that combining existing communication protocols with symmetric encryption was predictable for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR, arguing that prior art renders the core signal monitoring and reporting claims obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of references like Kamieniecki and Konstantinos to demonstrate that the claimed technology is a predictable evolution of existing cable television systems.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's patent (US 10135682) via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The challenger relies on numerous grounds combining references like Cooper-Saey and Prodan-Jalali to demonstrate predictability in wireless communications technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast initiated an IPR against Entropic's '759 patent, challenging all 23 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The challenger argues that combinations of prior art references—including Gurantz and Grube—render the methods for bit-loading modulation unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic's '775 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art references. The petition details multiple combinations of references (e.g., Rabenko/Gaspar) to establish non-obviousness across numerous claim sets in the cable modem technology space.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Entropic Communications' '759 patent, arguing that key concepts are obvious over prior art. The Board granted institution based on Fintiv factors and unique legal issues, allowing the IPR to proceed.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge UMBRA Technologies' patent (10630505) on grounds of obviousness. The Board found the Petition particularly strong in merits, leading to institution and advancing a key dispute over network routing technology.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility LLC and others filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,484,976 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed wireless communication features are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references including Babaei, Fwu, Lee, and Agiwal. This initial petition sets up a complex technical battle over 5G/LTE signaling techniques.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenges STA Group's wireless communications patent (9319852) in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on various combinations of prior art, including Shaffer/Keller and Chowdhury/OMA-PoC Documents.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (10,469,555) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patented multi-bitrate content streaming system is rendered invalid by prior art references Leaning and Allen. This challenge targets a wide range of claims related to adaptive bitrate technology.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '798 Patent in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Leaning and Allen, render the claimed adaptive bitrate streaming technology predictable. This initial petition sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over content delivery methods.
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.