Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 46 · 1,362 total
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ParkerVision’s ’593 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
Petitioners (Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T) seek to invalidate Aspen Networks’ 2011 VoIP handoff patent, arguing all 28 claims are obvious over Tagg and the Kottilingal‑Politis combination. They also request the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
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).
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs’ 7,233,790 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over the Chatani and Mulligan disclosures and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
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.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Woodbury Wireless’s ’930 MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Lastinger and Gore references.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’730 biometric‑authentication patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over the Burger and Robinson references.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Sheha and a new set of Randall‑based grounds. The petition asserts no discretionary denial grounds and requests institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
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.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging Skyworks' 9,450,579 patent covering RF switch designs. The petition asserts obviousness over Huang and Seshimo references and argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
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.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
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
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,179,359 patent covering differentiated network‑access policies for mobile devices, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering CDMA multi‑user detection, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Fuller, Reznik, Frank, and Zha.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.