Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 46 · 1,362 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00493 concerning patent 7,502,348. The decision upholds the earlier refusal to institute the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s ’348 patent covering silent proactive handoff. The petition relies on obviousness over Hsu and three additional references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s ’436 patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art network‑selection references. The petition argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
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 case involving Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,798,006. The denial leaves the original institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,798,006 was met with a detailed response from Four Batons Wireless, arguing the denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and APA. The Board has not yet ruled on the Director Review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,798,006 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper application of the Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s patent on real‑time wireless interface selection, asserting obviousness over Guo and Neave references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom KPN entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on KPN’s RE48089 patent. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to KPN’s RE48,089 patent was successful, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Olofsson and Kuruvilla. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim construction for “coverage assessment” and rejected the patent owner’s arguments about distinct elements and operational networks.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KPN’s RE48,089 patent covering automatic wireless coverage assessment. The petition relies on obviousness over Olofsson/Kuruvilla and Lee/Shrum and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Aviel Rubin, an expert for Four Batons, argues that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not render any claims of the ’671 patent obvious. He rejects all four grounds of unpatentability, suggesting the petition lacks merit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Four Batons Wireless successfully opposed Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a Wi‑Fi authentication patent, resulting in the Board denying the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s Wi‑Fi security patent, arguing due‑process and APA violations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs. The company argues that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial and reinstatement of its petitions.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, arguing that the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPR petitions violates due process and the APA after the USPTO retroactively rescinded the Vidal Memo. The company contends the Board ignored its timely Sotera stipulation, which should have shielded the petitions from denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings' ’996 patent covering wireless handover and timer‑based power management. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ ’281 patent covering wireless handover. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPRs, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ 8,886,181 patent covering seamless Wi‑Fi‑to‑cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and patent owner ASSIA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,991,122 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
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.