Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 46 · 1,362 total
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV Company and Nokia Technologies settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 8,050,321. They jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries' 11,947,716 patent covering head‑mounted devices with flexible displays and keyboards, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of GenghisComm’s OFDM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Galda, Dowling, Kaiser and Bury. The petition also argues the patent’s priority chain is broken and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of GenghisComm’s ’842 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that Fintiv factors favor institution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Mullen Industries’ AR gaming patent (US 11,033,821), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of written description. The petition seeks institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s ’345 patent on digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over Wright, Booth, Leyendecker and Jin. The petition requests institution and cancellation of all eleven claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate Smart RF’s U.S. Patent 10,958,296 covering a multi‑band digital predistortion linearizer. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali and request the PTAB to institute the IPR.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before institution. The Board granted the parties' joint motions and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review to overturn institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Samsung, finding no good cause and applying the Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs/PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court undermine its PTAB petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks asks the PTAB to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court and before the Board violate recent Revvo precedent. The request seeks out‑of‑time Director Review to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to overturn the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of institution and termination of the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings filed by Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in a parallel district‑court case constitute good cause for reversal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review, upholding the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung after the Patent Owner failed to show good cause for extending the deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung Electronics in place. The Board cited lack of good cause for a deadline extension and the Revvo precedent on inconsistent claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of Samsung's Wi‑Fi patents, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient justification for differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim constructions in the district court breach Revvo precedent and invalidate the petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs and PGRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and requiring justification for differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,849,337 covering a multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi system. The challenger asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’933 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of three prior‑art references covering multi‑RAT Wi‑Fi systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ Wi‑Fi bandwidth‑aggregation patent, asserting that a combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’976 patent, asserting that the combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,856,414. The challenger argues that the patent’s claims are obvious in view of earlier Wi‑Fi technologies disclosed in Chincholi, Riggert, and Choi. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claims.
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.