Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 46 · 1,362 total
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Skyworks' 9,917,563 patent, asserting that four claims are obvious over Ishimaru, Ichitsubo, and Harrison. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial is improper.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2021 patent on automatic number identification, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Har and Miller.
AT&T SERVICES INC. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of RightQuestion’s device‑fingerprinting patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Miller reference.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
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
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.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 21 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’578 patent covering mobile content‑sharing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,619,578 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art combinations and seeks institution of the review.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile device content sharing, asserting obviousness over prior Symbian forum and gaming system references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’348 patent, arguing they are obvious over early web‑community and proxy‑server references. The petition also challenges the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,793,336 patent covering web‑based content sharing on mobile devices, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Yahoo! club technology and related references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Mobile Data Technologies' 8,793,336 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 9,032,039 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations and urges the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’801 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KPN’s RE48,089 patent covering automatic wireless coverage assessment. The petition relies on obviousness over Olofsson/Kuruvilla and Lee/Shrum and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
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.