Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
415 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 14 · 415 total
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments filed a Petition challenging ParkerVision's patent claims related to RF signal processing and down-conversion. The core argument centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103), asserting that the claimed methods are merely combinations of known prior art techniques.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated initiated an IPR challenging ParkerVision's frequency down-conversion receiver claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references, including Tayloe and Macnally, render the claimed apparatus obvious.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioner Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges 20 claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '234 Patent based on obviousness (103). The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, particularly Leaning, Klements, and Gamble, to show that the adaptive bitrate content streaming technology was already known.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
A coalition of tech giants and wireless carriers, including Google LLC and Verizon Wireless, has filed an IPR petition against Headwater Research's '541 patent. The petitioners challenge the validity based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), citing combinations of prior art references.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against Headwater Research LLC's patent covering network capacity management and traffic prioritization. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Fadell, and Freund.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google and others filed a Petition challenging the validity of Headwater Research LLC's patent on wireless end-user device traffic control policies. The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Montemurro, Freund, and Araujo.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T-Mobile USA challenges Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, arguing that its claims covering multi-carrier transmission are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that known techniques and combinations of references render the patented technology predictable.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major carriers including AT&T and T-Mobile have filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,736,883, which covers cellular network inter-node connectivity methods. The Petitioners argue that the patent is invalid under Sections 102 and 103 based on prior art references Centonza and Han.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has initiated an IPR petition challenging Patent No. 11683643 owned by Staton Techiya, LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, asserting that the claimed audio signal processing methods are merely combinations of existing prior art. This action targets core noise cancellation technology used in wireless communications.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging several claims of S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.'s patent related to streaming data routing and Bluetooth connectivity. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious over a combination of prior art references, including Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging patent 7969990 held by S.M.R Innovations LTD, asserting that the claimed mobile device connectivity and data rerouting technology is obvious over prior art. The challenge focuses on combining references like Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's patent claims, arguing that Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts obviousness based on combinations of prior art references related to signal processing and RF down-conversion.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA, INC. has filed a Petition challenging 36 claims of ParkerVision's patent (9118528) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed frequency down-conversion receiver structures are rendered obvious by combining various prior art references, including Tayloe and TI Datasheet.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patents held by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. and Celerity IP, LLC. The core dispute centers on claims related to beamforming control signaling in massive MIMO systems. Petitioners assert that the claimed novelty is anticipated or rendered obvious by existing prior art.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon filed an IPR challenging Nokia’s patent (8175148) based on obviousness over foundational video compression standards like MPEG-1 and H.263. The petitioner argues that key claimed features, including motion compensated prediction and dynamic quantization levels, are already disclosed in these established industry standards.
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 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.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo challenged claims related to cyclic advancement in OFDM systems, arguing that the claimed novelty is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that 'cyclic advancement' is merely a predictable equivalent of known techniques found in prior art references like Dammann and Hervin.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung petitions to invalidate Collision's '071 patent, arguing that its Multi-user Detection improvements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioners assert that prior art references (Jin, Baum, Tsai) combine known techniques in MIMO systems to render the claimed features non-inventive.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Petitioners challenge 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8089946, arguing they are obvious over prior art references like Walton and Learned. The central argument is that supporting legacy protocol modes in multi-user environments was a well-known concept in the field of wireless communications.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
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.