Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 46 · 1,362 total
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and filed a joint request to treat the settlement documents as confidential. The parties seek termination of the proceeding while keeping the settlement details out of the public record.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims related to video compression and coding. The Board found that prior art references like Karczewicz and Frojdh, combined with H.263 standards, teach the claimed 'skip coding mode.'
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The Director granted review in multiple IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacating the FWDs. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on privity issues across related proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' U.S. Patent 7,463,703 covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts that all five claims are obvious under §103 by combining prior‑art references such as Brommer, Lilleberg, Hottinen, Learned, ElGamal, Frank and Zha.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. faced denial in an IPR proceeding against Collision Communications, Inc., regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found no reasonable likelihood that Samsung could overcome the obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an Authorized Response to the PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly weighed Factor 2 and should deny the review of Harbor Island Dynamic’s location‑services patent. The brief relies on extensive case law to show that a three‑month trial‑date delta only slightly favors discretionary denial.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Headwater Partners and major carriers have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,094,868 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia files a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its notification‑method patent, asserting the Board’s claim construction is inconsistent with the district court and the patent’s plain language.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America successfully defended its IPR against Cyandia’s 8,751,948 patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on a plain‑meaning construction of the term “determining a notification method.”
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, seeking Board approval to seal the document.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have entered a settlement that resolves their disputes over U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868. They jointly move to terminate the inter partes review as to Samsung and request confidentiality for the settlement.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 9,094,868, arguing that the invention is obvious over earlier patents by Jarvinen and Fox. The petition seeks institution of an inter‑partes review and cancellation of the claims.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 20 of Adaptive Spectrum's ’996 patent, asserting obviousness over Klayman and Agarwal in view of Starr. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.
Intel Corporation's IPR challenge against InterDigital, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material error under the Advanced Bionics framework and that arguments were previously presented during prosecution.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing Fintiv factors and the proximity of trial. The Board adopted a construction of 'periodically monitor' meaning 'monitor at regular intervals of time.'
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of Barco’s ’951 patent covering wireless meeting‑room technology, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and arguing that the examiner erred by not considering those references.
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.