Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 46 · 1,362 total
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB Director denied Google and other petitioners' request for review of the institution denial in several IPRs, including the case involving Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,594,460.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google’s request for a Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patent was rejected. The Board found the petitioners offered no statutory basis and raised new arguments, affirming the Director’s Fintiv analysis as reasonable.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.
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 patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The Board denied Verizon Wireless and co‑petitioners’ request for Director Review of an institution denial, finding no statutory basis and rejecting new arguments. The institution denial based on a holistic Fintiv analysis therefore stands.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Verizon and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,540,272.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC filed an authorized response opposing Verizon and other carriers’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 11,540,272. The response asserts the request lacks statutory basis and introduces impermissible new arguments.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a 5G preemption patent owned by Pegasus Wireless. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kuchibhotla and Chen publications and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’672 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation, arguing the claims are obvious over public standards and prior‑art publications.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed a petition to invalidate Proxense’s U.S. Patent 8,219,129 covering high‑rate WPAN communications, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s 9,265,043 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation. The petition asserts obviousness over combinations of Gilb, IEEE 802.15.3, Ward, and Brawn, and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,984,228 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MediaTek, leaving the proceeding active only for Arm Ltd.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of Collision Communications’ ’703 patent covering iterative multi‑user detection. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness and urges the Board to institute the review.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering multi‑user detection. They rely on obviousness over Fuller‑Reznik and Frank‑Zha combinations and argue that discretionary denial factors favor institution.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola seek to invalidate Collision Communications' 9,814,071 patent on multi‑user detection, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Baum, Tsai and Vrzic. The petition emphasizes new arguments and opposes discretionary denial, requesting institution of the IPR.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’505 patent covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts obviousness over Hottinen/Lilleberg and Zimmerman/Lilleberg and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility have filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' 8,089,946 patent covering multi‑user detection modems. They assert three obviousness grounds based on Walton, Learned, and Quigley prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.