Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 46 · 1,362 total
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
A coalition of major telecom companies (AT&T, Ericsson, Nokia, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent 10841958. The challenge asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Lee and Brismar.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR against Daingean Technologies Ltd., finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-4. The challenge centers on whether prior art (Lee et al. and Brismar et al.) anticipates or renders obvious the methods for managing System Information Blocks in wireless networks.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Intellectual Ventures I LLC's wireless communication patent (7623439) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge centers on whether a minor modification to OFDM cyclic delay diversity is inventive over existing prior art standards.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to Cyclic Diversity Systems (OFDM), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically found deficiencies in meeting the duration requirements when comparing cyclic advance against prior art disclosures like Larsson and IEEE.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple major carriers, including AT&T and T-Mobile, have filed a Petition challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '868 patent on grounds of obviousness. The petitioners argue that the core concepts related to beam correspondence and higher layer signaling in 5G NR were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Jung and Xiong. This challenge targets several claims relating to advanced wireless communication methods.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent related to beamforming in wireless communications. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 'compelling merits' despite arguments regarding obviousness.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Petitioners including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson have filed an IPR challenging 22 claims of a patent related to Handover and Carrier Aggregation. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious when combining prior art references like Nokia or Ericsson with relevant 3GPP standards. This filing initiates a major challenge against the patent's validity.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung challenged Cerence's patent 7,395,078 regarding voice messaging over SMS channels by asserting obviousness (103). Petitioners presented multiple grounds combining prior art references (Dolan, Freedman, Halonen) to demonstrate the claimed methods were taught or suggested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024‑01205, arguing the Patent Owner’s Director Review request is moot and the Board acted correctly under Fintiv factor analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions' wireless patents, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution decision against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that had vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01208. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola offered no specific error or proper new evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01208 against Stellar’s request for Director Review, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and Sotera stipulation. The Board’s decision to institute remains unchallenged.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s request for rehearing of a PTAB Director Review Decision was denied. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola had already had a chance to argue under the prior guidance.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola’s patents, alleging misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and improper discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions’ patents, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and the "compelling merits" standard.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01205. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was correctly applied and that Motorola failed to show specific errors. The denial leaves the Director Review decision standing.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar's U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed features of the video surveillance apparatus are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This challenge targets multiple claims related to data recording, wireless interfaces, and file indexing.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for 9912914, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on all challenged obviousness grounds (103). The petitioner argued that combinations of prior art references—including Yerazunis, Fiore, Ely, and Lewellen—would render claims 1-23 obvious to a POSITA.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola vs. Stellar IPR, ultimately denying institution based on Fintiv factors favoring denial due to substantial parallel proceeding investment.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions vs. Stellar, LLC IPR, ultimately denying institution because substantial investment had already occurred in the parallel district court proceeding.
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.