Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 46 · 1,362 total
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against InterDigital's patent 8737933, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Microsoft. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to secure discretionary denial, moving the case to the merits phase.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board upheld the validity of patent 9173054 after finding that the priority date (December 22, 2009) disqualified all cited prior art under Sections 102 and 103. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the ancestor application sufficiently described both Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer methods.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding priority and found that the specification adequately supported the combination of Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore's IPR petition fails because the cited Katz reference is not a printed publication and the petitioner’s reliance on Tolonen and Ishizu lacks the required particularity. The owner seeks denial of institution and invokes §325(d).
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑32 of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent are obvious. The company argues the Board correctly relied on intrinsic record and prior art, not on the patent owner’s functional‑emulation arguments.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found Varia’s RFID‑related claims obvious over Willgert‑Mooney, rejecting the patent owner’s construction and a Director Review request. The Board denied the request, leaving all 19 claims unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings LLC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Apple’s RFID‑emulation patent claims unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported “functional emulation” theory not raised in the Petition. The request seeks reversal of the unpatentability findings for all 19 claims.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑39 of Varia’s RFID‑related patent are obvious. The Board denied Varia’s request for director review, leaving the unpatentability decision intact.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple’s IPR against Varia Holdings’ RFID‑emulation patent resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all 32 claims unpatentable. Varia now seeks Director Review, arguing the Board relied on an unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Reply.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claims lack novelty and meet PTAB discretionary standards for institution.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Varia Holdings’ ’984 patent covering emulated RFID functionality in mobile devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution to invalidate the patent.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon filed an IPR challenging Nokia’s patent (8175148) based on obviousness over foundational video compression standards like MPEG-1 and H.263. The petitioner argues that key claimed features, including motion compensated prediction and dynamic quantization levels, are already disclosed in these established industry standards.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research entered a settlement that led to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 8,588,110. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the proceeding and treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’110 patent on data‑usage billing. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial. A stipulation not to pursue the same issues in parallel district‑court litigation is also included.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Qualcomm files an IPR petition targeting Cobblestone’s 7,924,802 patent, asserting that its multi‑carrier claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition mirrors a pending Samsung IPR and seeks institution without new arguments.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks IPR on DeepSig’s 11,018,704 patent, asserting that all 24 claims are obvious over earlier machine‑learning predistortion patents (Jüschke, Holt, Dzierwa). The petition argues that the claimed innovations were well‑known and that the Board should institute the review.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems successfully secured the institution of IPR against DeepSig's patent (11,018,704) over radio signal distortion correction claims, setting up a major technical dispute in cellular communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Qualcomm successfully secured institution for its IPR against Cobblestone Wireless, despite the petition being substantively identical to a previously instituted Samsung proceeding. This decision emphasizes that lack of 'road-mapping' alone is insufficient grounds for discretionary denial when the claims are highly relevant.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using various prior art combinations in the field of multi-carrier communication systems. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'information' as 'data,' which was critical to its findings against the Patent Owner.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they were obvious in light of prior art references (Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, Russell). The Board adopted a construction of 'concurrently writing' that aligned with both parties and district court precedent. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of disclosures taught all limitations of the claims for high-speed packet processing.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition against Proxense’s ’960 patent, seeking to invalidate all 20 claims on the basis of obviousness over Giobbi, Dua and Broadcom references, and argues that 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.