Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
830 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 28 · 830 total
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,984,228 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MediaTek, leaving the proceeding active only for Arm Ltd.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
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.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and others have filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,749,700 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed network scheduling and application prioritization features are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Rao and Scahill.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,198,076, arguing that its claims related to power management and network prioritization are obvious. The petitioners assert that combining prior art references like Rao and Araujo with others provides predictable improvements in device functionality and battery longevity.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology Development LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 25‑28 of its 8,798,120 patent are unpatentable. The owner argues the Board misapplied the district court’s claim construction and relied on unsupported prior art. Samsung Electronics is the challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung files a reply supporting its IPR petition against Empire Technology’s 8,798,120 patent, arguing that the claim term “idle power consumption of the mobile station” is correctly construed and that claims 25‑29 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering power‑control techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung rebuts Empire’s request to reinterpret the term “idle power consumption” and to overturn the Board’s obviousness findings. The Board’s construction aligns with the district court and expert testimony, and Empire’s isolated prior‑art attacks are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a preliminary reply opposing Empire Technology’s narrow claim construction of “idle power consumption” in U.S. Patent 8,798,120. The argument centers on the patent’s disclosure of leakage‑current power draw during sleep mode, which Samsung says renders the proposed construction unsupported.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.
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.