Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 46 · 1,362 total
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility and co‑petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on their UWB train‑control patent. They argue the Board wrongly treated a cited patent number as previously presented art and erred in finding the prior art was substantially the same as that considered during prosecution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology Development LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 25‑28 of its 8,798,120 patent are unpatentable. The owner argues the Board misapplied the district court’s claim construction and relied on unsupported prior art. Samsung Electronics is the challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung files a reply supporting its IPR petition against Empire Technology’s 8,798,120 patent, arguing that the claim term “idle power consumption of the mobile station” is correctly construed and that claims 25‑29 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering power‑control techniques.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991, leading the USPTO to dismiss the Director Review request as moot and return the case to the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology defends the PTAB’s claim construction for patent 8,565,331, asserting that “subsequently received signals” must be decoded after updating the channel estimate and that the Haustein reference does not teach the asserted limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues that Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered, the petition lacks merit, and discretionary factors favor denial given parallel district‑court litigation.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung rebuts Empire’s request to reinterpret the term “idle power consumption” and to overturn the Board’s obviousness findings. The Board’s construction aligns with the district court and expert testimony, and Empire’s isolated prior‑art attacks are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a preliminary reply opposing Empire Technology’s narrow claim construction of “idle power consumption” in U.S. Patent 8,798,120. The argument centers on the patent’s disclosure of leakage‑current power draw during sleep mode, which Samsung says renders the proposed construction unsupported.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR disputes with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the three pending reviews and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB Director denied the petitioners’ request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving ASUS patents. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia jointly moved to terminate four inter partes reviews after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied institution of Amazon’s IPR against Nokia’s wireless patent and dismissed the parties’ joint motion to terminate as moot. The Board granted in part a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and filed a joint request to treat the settlement documents as confidential. The parties seek termination of the proceeding while keeping the settlement details out of the public record.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR rules to limit public disclosure.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,945,885, leading to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement while denying its separation from the IPR files.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco have settled with Cobblestone Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over the ’802 patent covering IEEE 802.11n technology.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,212,146 after reaching a settlement. The motion cites statutory authority for termination and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits.
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.