Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 46 · 1,362 total
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based data‑exchange patent resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over the Eagle reference and, for three claims, the combination of Eagle with Mgrdechian.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’129 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior art. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of fifteen claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,913 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s petition to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,116,749 patent was denied. The Board found the petition’s anticipation and obviousness arguments based on Mgrdechian and Kulakowski insufficiently particularized, especially regarding dynamic identifiers and predetermined events.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' 8,369,842 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against patent 8116749 resulted in a mixed decision: five claims were held unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while four claims remained patentable because the obviousness challenge failed.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s ’359 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless information exchange. The PTAB found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a wireless‑communication patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier Bluetooth‑based systems such as Eagle and Mgrdechian.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel all 26 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing that prior art (Bucuk, Nordman, Kallio, Perttila) anticipates or makes the claims obvious.
Google LLC v.Gamba Group Holdings LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition against Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s 9,772,193 patent covering Bluetooth and GPS‑based parking‑location methods. The petition asserts anticipation by Baese and Phillips and obviousness with Phillips and Soliman, seeking cancellation of claims 12, 13, and 15‑18. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Intellectual Ventures’ LTE‑related patent, alleging obviousness over multiple pre‑grant references. The petition cites Papasakellariou, Classon, Liu, Muharemovic, and Onggosanusi as prior art.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and requests institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung seeks IPR on Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent (US 11,233,780). Network‑1’s preliminary response argues the Examiner already approved claim 1 and that the petitioner’s combinations do not teach key claim limitations, urging denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art standards and publications.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of Headwater's messaging patent, arguing obviousness over a 3GPP standard and an earlier encryption patent. They also oppose discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑18 of the ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Limont, Wright, Xu, and Polson references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s ’733 patent claims are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a 3GPP MMS standard and an earlier encryption device. All 27 challenged claims were cancelled.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.
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.