Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 17 of 46 · 1,362 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,280,599 and have jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Headwater Research have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,924,543 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).
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 IPR2024‑01205. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was correctly applied and that Motorola failed to show specific errors. The denial leaves the Director Review decision standing.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469, leading to a joint motion that terminated four related inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The IPRs concerning Patent 8,924,543 were terminated after Verizon Wireless and other carriers reached a settlement with Headwater Research. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its HomeRF‑based cellular‑call routing patent obvious. The Patent Owners contend the Board introduced a new adaptation rationale not raised by Apple, violating procedural rules.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged WLAN routing claims non‑obvious, emphasizing that unclaimed details like transcoding are routine. The Director’s request for review was denied, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s Director Review Request to vacate the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01048. Apple contends the Board correctly treated the method steps as order‑agnostic and that the prior art analysis remains sound.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review Request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition cites improper weighting of Fintiv factors and failure to consider prior art.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP and Bell Northern Research have settled their Wi‑Fi patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 48629.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, and AT&T have settled with Headwater Research and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 8,924,543, ending the proceeding before any merits decision.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless have settled their dispute over a multicast patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite public policy and statutory authority to end the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia jointly moved to terminate an IPR over Active Wireless's 5G PUCCH patent after reaching settlement agreements with the patent owner. The Board was asked to end the proceeding because the merits had not yet been decided and public policy favors settlement.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless and other carriers settled with Headwater Research, leading to the termination of an IPR over patent 8,924,543 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless have filed a joint motion to keep their 5G patent settlement materials confidential under applicable statutes. The request cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and argues it is timely.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless jointly request that their 5G NR settlement be kept confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
The IPR over Cobblestone Wireless's patent 7,924,802 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. A joint motion to dismiss was filed and granted, ending the proceeding before institution.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom operators seek Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against ASUS’s 5G QoS patent, alleging the panel ignored prior‑art disclosures and expert testimony.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia, together with patent owner Active Wireless Technologies, filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the materials from the public PTAB file.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also deemed business‑confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s Bluetooth streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB erred in instituting an IPR against Samsung by ignoring the Fintiv factors and the rescinded 2022 Guidance Memo. The company seeks a denial of institution and an extension of the filing deadline.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also designated as business‑confidential information.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless Technologies have settled their 5G NR patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia and Ericsson settled the IPR against Cobblestone Wireless’s 7,924,802 patent and asked the PTAB to keep the settlement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
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.