Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 24 of 46 · 1,362 total
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00174 concerning patent 11,184,130. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317 before any merits are decided.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motorola’s 5G DMRS patent (U.S. 11,184,130). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness based on 3GPP standards documents TR 38.912 and two R1 technical reports.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging Skyworks' 9,450,579 patent covering RF switch designs. The petition asserts obviousness over Huang and Seshimo references and argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Skyworks Solutions, Inc., asserting that several claims related to RF switches and semiconductor devices are unpatentable. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103) over prior art references Huang and Seshimo.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and others have filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,749,700 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed network scheduling and application prioritization features are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Rao and Scahill.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,198,076, arguing that its claims related to power management and network prioritization are obvious. The petitioners assert that combining prior art references like Rao and Araujo with others provides predictable improvements in device functionality and battery longevity.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Lenovo and Motorola against Headwater Research, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology Development LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 25‑28 of its 8,798,120 patent are unpatentable. The owner argues the Board misapplied the district court’s claim construction and relied on unsupported prior art. Samsung Electronics is the challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung files a reply supporting its IPR petition against Empire Technology’s 8,798,120 patent, arguing that the claim term “idle power consumption of the mobile station” is correctly construed and that claims 25‑29 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering power‑control techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung rebuts Empire’s request to reinterpret the term “idle power consumption” and to overturn the Board’s obviousness findings. The Board’s construction aligns with the district court and expert testimony, and Empire’s isolated prior‑art attacks are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a preliminary reply opposing Empire Technology’s narrow claim construction of “idle power consumption” in U.S. Patent 8,798,120. The argument centers on the patent’s disclosure of leakage‑current power draw during sleep mode, which Samsung says renders the proposed construction unsupported.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The petitioner asserts that several challenged claims related to MIMO/SIMO mode selection and power optimization in wireless communications are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely on combining established prior art, including Li-Siam, Cui-2003, Wu, and Tiirola, to demonstrate predictable combinations of circuit and radio frequency power usage.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Empire Technology Development's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art. The Board preliminarily adopted a broad definition of 'idle power consumption,' setting the stage for a detailed examination of technical combination possibilities.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB found claims 25-28 unpatentable over Li and Siam, based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted a specific construction of 'idle power consumption' as power consumed while powered on and waiting to send data. However, the attempt to prove obviousness for claim 29 failed due to impermissible hindsight bias.
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.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 9,064,764 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, also requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the Director Review requests for several IPRs, including the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,181,931, leaving the earlier institution denials in place.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s wireless patent. They claim the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance, violating due process. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review, finding no abuse of discretion in the Director's denial of institution and rejecting new arguments raised for the first time.
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.