Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
830 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 28 · 830 total
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.
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.
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.
The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Wilus over its Wi‑Fi 6 patent. The response argues that discretionary denial factors favor referral and that the cited grounds do not merit review, keeping the IPR instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung seeks to uphold an IPR institution on Wilus’s Wi‑Fi packet‑format patent, while Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the institution, arguing errors on public accessibility, discretionary denial, and claim‑construction inconsistency.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s IPR petition was granted, instituting review of all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G paging patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art You, Liu, and Mallick.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 10,951,271). The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent, asserting obviousness over Liu and Park publications. The petition details a predictable combination of prior‑art teachings and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Apex Beam’s paging patent (U.S. 11,917,581). The petition alleges obviousness over Yeo, 3GPP TS 36.304, and Mallick references and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB institution denial was challenged by Pegasus’s counsel, who argued the Director’s decision was proper and that new arguments were improper. The response seeks to keep the denial in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for a patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They argue the denial violated due process and ignored favorable factors such as a Sotera stipulation and economic interests.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the PTAB's decision not to institute several telecom-related IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
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.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB Director denied Google and other petitioners' request for review of the institution denial in several IPRs, including the case involving Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,594,460.
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.