Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 46 · 1,362 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,974,143, asserting that the claimed multi‑transceiver bandwidth‑allocation architecture is obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi aggregation systems (Chincholi, Riggert) and, for a subset of claims, also over Choi’s dynamic frequency selection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks' 11,818,591 patent covering multi‑transceiver wireless networking devices, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01209 after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Institution was granted in IPR2025-01208 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review of related cases.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01207 after the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard, but all related proceedings are currently stayed pending Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01206 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. However, all related proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01205, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay pending related Director Reviews.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11818591, allowing Samsung to proceed with its challenge. The trial is currently stayed pending review by the Director.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11849337, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with its challenge, though the trial is currently stayed.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR covering a Mobile Data Technologies patent on mobile‑data technology. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and ignored clear examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies enjoys strong settled expectations for its ’801 patent, keeping the denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent. The petition challenges the Board’s discretionary denial, citing lack of settled expectations and examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also referenced.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,825,801 patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and lack of new evidence justified the denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00537 and related proceedings, keeping the institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’801 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
SmartSky Networks, LLC v.Gogo Business Aviation LLC et al.
SmartSky Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Gogo’s ‘600 ATG communication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research's U.S. Patent 11,096,055 covering automated device provisioning and activation. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s ’232 patent covering ubiquitous sensor‑network middleware, arguing that the claims are obvious over earlier publications by Jakobson and Tsetsos. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, requesting the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO denial of institution for its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
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 8,078,561 patent covering digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art publications.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly request the Board to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding as to Hisense.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense USA have settled their IPR against Nokia Technologies' patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding as to Hisense.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom's 8,385,913 patent, asserting that the claimed server‑mediated device‑identifier exchange is fully anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent resulted in all nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent on wireless device identifier exchange. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and Kulakowski references and seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑based payment patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier wireless transaction systems.
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.