Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 46 · 1,362 total
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Apex Beam’s paging patent (U.S. 11,917,581). The petition alleges obviousness over Yeo, 3GPP TS 36.304, and Mallick references and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent, challenging 17 claims based on obviousness over prior art including Yeo and TS36.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Apex Beam Technologies, challenging 20 claims related to massive MIMO transmission. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam's patent 10,462,767, challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness over prior art standards like Yeo and TS36.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of GenghisComm’s ’568 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing the patent is post‑AIA. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB institution denial was challenged by Pegasus’s counsel, who argued the Director’s decision was proper and that new arguments were improper. The response seeks to keep the denial in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers sought a Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless. The Board found the request lacked a proper basis and introduced new arguments, and therefore denied the review.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for a patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They argue the denial violated due process and ignored favorable factors such as a Sotera stipulation and economic interests.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the PTAB's decision not to institute several telecom-related IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers filed a request for director review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against a telecom patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The petition argues the Board abused discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and misapplied Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00293 and related cases, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Procomm’s distributed base‑station patent (US 8,583,100). They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Aarflot, Laroia and Wiedeman and argue that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to review Procomm’s 8,497,813 panel‑antenna patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny institution.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Procomm's 2006 DAS gain‑control patent, arguing that the Solum prior art anticipates every limitation. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations and Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance on Sotera stipulations.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR challenging Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent. They argue the denial misapplied statutory frameworks and ignored a Sotera stipulation.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR covering Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the Director ignored the patent’s recent issuance, lack of commercialization, and the Sotera stipulation, and misapplied Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the denial ignored settled‑expectations guidance, Fintiv factors, and a Sotera stipulation, and was applied retroactively after the Vidal Memo was rescinded.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.
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.