Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 32 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 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.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Procomm’s distributed base‑station patent (US 8,583,100). They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Aarflot, Laroia and Wiedeman and argue that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to review Procomm’s 8,497,813 panel‑antenna patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny institution.
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.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged 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.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 20 of Adaptive Spectrum's ’996 patent, asserting obviousness over Klayman and Agarwal in view of Starr. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Procomm's 2006 DAS gain‑control patent, arguing that the Solum prior art anticipates every limitation. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
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.
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Proxense’s ’289 patent covering hybrid devices with secure memory and proximity authentication, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of DH International’s ’294 patent covering multimode cellular phone data switching, arguing that Mooney and Lee disclose the same features and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’042 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is not justified.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,785,759 owned by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. The challenge asserts that the claims related to numerology bandwidth determination in wireless systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This initial filing details multiple grounds of obviousness, combining various prior art references including Noh, Tooher, Islam, Jiang, and Miao.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Petitioners challenge 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8089946, arguing they are obvious over prior art references like Walton and Learned. The central argument is that supporting legacy protocol modes in multi-user environments was a well-known concept in the field of wireless communications.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung petitions to invalidate Collision's '071 patent, arguing that its Multi-user Detection improvements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioners assert that prior art references (Jin, Baum, Tsai) combine known techniques in MIMO systems to render the claimed features non-inventive.
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.
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.
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.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo challenged claims related to cyclic advancement in OFDM systems, arguing that the claimed novelty is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that 'cyclic advancement' is merely a predictable equivalent of known techniques found in prior art references like Dammann and Hervin.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging 14 claims of ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '658 patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments center on combining various prior art references, including Lindh, Tooher, Kim, and 3GPP specifications, to demonstrate that the claimed LTE network methods were predictable.
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.
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.