Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 46 · 1,362 total
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Barco’s wireless presentation patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and examiner error.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of Barco’s U.S. Patent 11,403,237, alleging obviousness over Kaplan‑Mardiks and Maeda‑Deforche combinations and arguing examiner error for not considering Deforche.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink petitions the PTAB to cancel nine claims of Barco’s ’676 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references (Ono, Uchida, Deforche, Grimshaw). The petition argues the examiner failed to consider these references and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Yealink against Barco, challenging 5 claims related to electronic tools for meetings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the combination of prior art references Kaplan and Mardiks.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering RFID‑enabled hybrid devices, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior art such as Dua and Buer and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering hybrid devices with personal digital keys and receiver‑decoder circuits, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater’s ’918 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing wireless‑device technologies. The petition also contends that PTAB discretion should not block institution, referencing Advanced Bionics and Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 patent on data‑usage monitoring in mobile devices, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent (9647918), citing procedural redundancy with a previously filed, higher-ranked petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review, vacating the Board's decision and favoring Headwater Research LLC over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. based on procedural timing factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Headwater, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged wireless device claims are unpatentable over Bennett and Vadde.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB sent an email notifying the parties that the patent owner has filed Director Review requests for IPR2024‑01284, ‑01285, ‑01313 and ‑01314. The petitioner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
PTAB Director Review requests have been filed for four IPRs involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar’s patent. The petitioner may submit a five‑page response without new evidence, after which the Director will decide on the review.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn institution of 19 claims of its ’540 patent. The Director found the Board erred on Fintiv factors and denied institution, preserving Motorola Solutions’ position.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung challenges an ASUS patent regarding 5G NR power control and PHR triggering using multiple prior art references including Ericsson and Huawei. The core argument is obviousness based on predictable combinations within industry standard-setting documents.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications initiated an IPR challenging Touchstream Technologies' patent on media playback systems, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge centers on combining prior art references like Danciu and Mahajan to show predictable results in command translation.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director of the USPTO denied institution for several IPRs involving Motorola and Stellar, vacating prior Board decisions. The denial was based on changes in circumstances regarding related proceedings and the applicability of new guidance.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar, ultimately denying the petitions.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Entropic Communications' patent 8363681, targeting network synchronization and ranging methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art standards like IEEE802.3ah, Shvodian, Frei, and Ovadia. This institutional decision sets up a detailed examination of technical obviousness in wireless communications.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. challenged Entropic Communications LLC's patent (8631450) in a Petition, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board found institution warranted based on favorable application of the Fintiv and Advanced Bionics tests.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,173,054 owned by InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (Sections 102/103). The petitioner argues that the patent lacks written description support for its method using Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi transfer, asserting prior art reference Forutanpour anticipates or renders the claims obvious.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '933 patent claims, arguing that they are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Forutanpour. The petitioner asserts lack of written description support in ancestor applications for methods involving Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi protocol switching. This petition raises key issues regarding both anticipation and enablement under 102 and 103.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the challenger failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The challenge related to common bit-loading methods in broadband coaxial networks.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation successfully challenged InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds regarding anticipation and obviousness. This institution decision keeps the dispute alive for further review.
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.