Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
830 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 28 · 830 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The petitioner asserts that several challenged claims related to MIMO/SIMO mode selection and power optimization in wireless communications are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely on combining established prior art, including Li-Siam, Cui-2003, Wu, and Tiirola, to demonstrate predictable combinations of circuit and radio frequency power usage.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Empire Technology Development's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art. The Board preliminarily adopted a broad definition of 'idle power consumption,' setting the stage for a detailed examination of technical combination possibilities.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB found claims 25-28 unpatentable over Li and Siam, based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted a specific construction of 'idle power consumption' as power consumed while powered on and waiting to send data. However, the attempt to prove obviousness for claim 29 failed due to impermissible hindsight bias.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore’s IPR petition is deficient, lacking proper proof that the cited references qualify as prior art, and seeks denial of institution.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s wireless patent. They claim the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance, violating due process. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Cellco Partnership and other major carriers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation's ’931 patent covering MTC uplink control channel resource allocation, asserting obviousness over standard 3GPP references. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding cellular network resource allocation claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Tesla failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
DeepSig rebuts Digital Global Systems’ attempt to introduce new claim‑construction arguments in a PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board’s original claim interpretations were correct and that instituting a dependent claim without an unpatentable independent claim is legally untenable.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its AI‑driven radio‑signal patent. The petitioner argues the Board misread claim language, requiring a modeled signal, and that the Jüschke and Holt references satisfy the statutory standard.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate DeepSig’s 11,777,540 patent, asserting that its AI‑driven radio‑predistortion claims are obvious over earlier disclosures by Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa. The petition outlines three statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges institution of the review.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google, and T‑Mobile jointly request that the Board treat their settlement with Pegasus as confidential and terminate the IPR over the ’463 patent, citing that all disputes have been resolved.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and seek to terminate the IPR as to Ericsson. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to partially terminate the IPR against Ericsson. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue that settlement warrants termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and other U.S. carriers have filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering a 5G patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and acted retroactively, violating due‑process. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus entered a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review as to Ericsson. The Board treated the settlement as confidential and left the proceeding open for the remaining petitioners.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Nokia. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its ’463 patent, arguing the patent has been dropped from related district‑court litigation and should not consume Board resources.
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.