Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 46 · 1,362 total
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully obtained a PTAB institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s massive‑MIMO patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑20 based on Liu and Jover references and declined discretionary denial despite related district court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering a wireless communication patent (U.S. 10,568,113). The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure‑recovery patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Liu and Jover disclosures. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the patent.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 11,626,904 patent on multi‑antenna transmission, asserting obviousness over Liu, Park, and Ng references.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s ’904 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission. The petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over the Kim and Chen disclosures and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’172 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments, asserting obviousness over Jain and Dua publications and arguing against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam, challenging 20 claims related to multi-antenna transmission in wireless systems. The Board found that Apple met the reasonable likelihood standard based on prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,568,113, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art including Xia and Jover.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Headwater Partners II LLC's patent related to wireless backhaul systems. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on obviousness and anticipation over prior art (Ishii and Sfar).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards, relied on faulty facts, and violated due process.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 ‘039 patent was denied. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, citing strong settled expectations and procedural compliance.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00535/00536, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,032,039 patent covering network‑based content management. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑2002 web and mobile references and argues 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’ 9,032,039 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations and urges the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of its IPR on patent 7,502,348, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violated due process and the APA.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Four Batons Wireless responded to Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution, arguing the Board acted within its discretion under §314 and the Fintiv factors. The Board denied the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless was rejected. The Board held that Samsung waived procedural arguments and that the discretionary denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314.
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.