Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 46 · 1,362 total
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight IPRs before they were instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00691, leaving Nokia's patent institution intact.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's patent 11,805,267. The order affirms that the institution decisions stand.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00604 and submitted a settlement agreement. The Board granted the termination and partially granted confidentiality of the settlement documents.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore's IPR petition fails because the cited Katz reference is not a printed publication and the petitioner’s reliance on Tolonen and Ishizu lacks the required particularity. The owner seeks denial of institution and invokes §325(d).
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore’s IPR petition is deficient, lacking proper proof that the cited references qualify as prior art, and seeks denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and co‑petitioners' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,134,400, arguing the cited reference is not prior art and fails to teach the claimed SRB configurations, urging the Board to deny institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after the parties jointly requested termination and sought confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2. The PTAB granted the parties' joint motion to terminate the inter‑ partes review and treated the settlement documents as business‑confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon’s request for a Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia’s patent 11,805,267, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024-00605 covering Nokia’s patent 10,536,714. The Board granted termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung and Cobblestone Wireless have settled the IPR concerning patent 7,924,802. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics and Cobblestone Wireless settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,051,306, leading the PTAB to terminate four related inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,536,714 and jointly seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential while terminating the proceeding.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR targeting DISH's adaptive‑streaming patent. The petitioner contends the Board failed to consider the merits of its "Leaning" prior art reference and misapplied General Plastic factors.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. submits a preliminary response to AT&T’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited prior art (Babaei, Fwu, Lee, Agiwal) does not teach the claimed “different‑from” RNTI, common search‑space, or confirmation features of claims 2 and 4, and therefore the petition should be denied.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google successfully oppose Headwater Research’s untimely Director Review request, leaving the PTAB’s finding that the ’733 patent’s claims are unpatentable intact.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied instituting its IPR against XR Communications’ wireless patent. The petition argues the Board erred on claim construction and denied a hearing on a sua sponte construction, violating precedent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia request Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 5G‑related patent, arguing the Board added an unsupported ‘pre‑equalization’ step in claim construction. They seek vacatur of the denial and to proceed with the review.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their dispute over Patent 8,145,249, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review.
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.