Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 46 · 1,362 total
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
PTAB Director Review requests have been filed for four IPRs involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar’s patent. The petitioner may submit a five‑page response without new evidence, after which the Director will decide on the review.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC petitions the PTAB Director to overturn institution decisions for Motorola Solutions' patents, alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and abused discretion under § 314(a). The request focuses on claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 10,965,910.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01313, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and gave undue weight to Motorola’s stipulation. The petition seeks a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner seeks Director Review, asserting the PTAB misinterpreted “close proximity” and the activation cue in its Bluetooth‑based data‑exchange patent. It claims the Board’s reliance on Mooney and Lee references is unsupported, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding for claims 1‑20.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024‑01205, arguing the Patent Owner’s Director Review request is moot and the Board acted correctly under Fintiv factor analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn institution of 19 claims of its ’540 patent. The Director found the Board erred on Fintiv factors and denied institution, preserving Motorola Solutions’ position.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions' wireless patents, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.
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.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo’s request for director review of the PTAB’s decision on its IPR challenging patent 7,623,439 was denied. The Board found the petitioner introduced new arguments and evidence not previously presented and failed to show good cause for submitting additional evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Collision Communications’ wireless signaling patent. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied prior art references and erred in finding a lack of particularity. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution decision against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that had vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01208. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola offered no specific error or proper new evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01208 against Stellar’s request for Director Review, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and Sotera stipulation. The Board’s decision to institute remains unchallenged.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s request for rehearing of a PTAB Director Review Decision was denied. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola had already had a chance to argue under the prior guidance.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola’s patents, alleging misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and improper discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions’ patents, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and the "compelling merits" standard.
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.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR disputes over four wireless patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement documents confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,918,741 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over Nokia's wireless‑technology patent and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, asking the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,036,273 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
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.