Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 26 of 46 · 1,362 total
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, relying on seven new §103 grounds that combine Randall, Wollrab, Obradovich, Sheha, Song, Mura‑Smith and McDonnell references. The petition argues the Board should institute the IPR and cancel the claims, noting no discretionary denial applies.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and several industry partners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 11,219,000, which covers uplink control channel resource allocation in 5G NR. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Yan, Takeda, Marinier, and a 3GPP submission, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of U.S. Patent 10,638,463 covering uplink control channel resource allocation. The petition argues obviousness over Takeda, Yan, Marinier and a 3GPP technical contribution, and opposes discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google successfully defended its IPR on a Bluetooth data‑exchange patent, and the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, finding the new arguments unsupported.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its Bluetooth‑related patent, arguing the Board used an improper subjective standard and that the cited prior art does not teach the required activation cue.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner seeks Director Review, asserting the PTAB misinterpreted “close proximity” and the activation cue in its Bluetooth‑based data‑exchange patent. It claims the Board’s reliance on Mooney and Lee references is unsupported, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding for claims 1‑20.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of DH International’s ’294 patent covering multimode cellular phone data switching, arguing that Mooney and Lee disclose the same features and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge DH International Ltd.'s patentability, leading the Board to institute IPR proceedings on all 20 claims. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'activation cue' favorable to Google and found that the Petitioner met the standard for institution based on obviousness grounds over prior art references Mooney and Lee.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 20 claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable over prior art references Mooney and Lee. The Board successfully construed key terms like 'activation cue' functionally, agreeing that a quality Bluetooth signal satisfies this requirement.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing the Fintiv factors and lack of compelling merits despite strong arguments regarding network optimization technology.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to review CellSpin Soft’s U.S. Patent 11,234,121 covering a Bluetooth‑enabled data capture device. They assert the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support, seeking institution of the IPR.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft’s 8,904,030 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several Bluetooth‑related prior arts and lack priority. The petition also cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’313 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art patents Diener and Shaffer. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution and seeks a finding of unpatentability.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum for patent 11770313, citing the advanced scheduling and substantial investment in a parallel district court lawsuit.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have entered settlement agreements with Woodbury Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,211,895. The motion relies on statutory authority allowing termination when parties agree to settle.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 10,211,895, filing the settlement as confidential and moving to terminate the proceeding.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Woodbury Wireless’s ’895 patent covering MIMO Wi‑Fi systems, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Lastinger publication and Sadowsky patent.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a Nokia wireless‑technology patent and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,571,833 after instituting the review. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Nokia's video encoding patent (9571833). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly those combining Rusert and Zheng.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T and other carriers have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of their IPR challenging a Korean-owned telecom patent. They argue the Board abused discretion by ignoring a Sotera stipulation and misapplying Fintiv factors.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC defends the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2025‑00036, arguing petitioners introduced new arguments and that the Board’s discretionary analysis under §314(a) was proper. The request for Director Review is contested and remains pending.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00036, leaving the original denial in place.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Pegasus’s 5G slice‑aware handover patent, arguing obviousness over multiple 3GPP standards and that the prior art was not raised during prosecution.
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.