Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 33 of 46 · 1,362 total
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR trial on all grounds for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC, finding persuasive arguments that claims are unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Board found specific teachings in Yerazunis and Fiore supported the obviousness of key claims regarding surveillance data recording.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review of an institution decision and subsequently denied the IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, LLC. The denial was based on Fintiv factors favoring dismissal due to extensive prior litigation in district court.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Stellar, LLC regarding patent 7593034. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This moves the dispute into substantive trial phase.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director denied institution of IPRs in four related proceedings involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar, citing the substantial investment already made in a parallel district court infringement trial.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of a patent related to Radio Link Control (RLC) protocols. Petitioners argue that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by existing 3GPP communication standards. The core dispute centers on whether prior art correctly detects protocol errors in wireless transmissions.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied AT&T and other petitioners' challenges to Innovative Sonic Limited's wireless patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected arguments that 3GPP specifications anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed error handling method.
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major telecommunications companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, Ericsson, and Nokia, have filed a petition challenging the validity of a cellular network patent (9560559). The challengers argue that the patented claims are anticipated or obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Centonza and industry standards.
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied the petition to invalidate claims related to small cell enhancements, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board rejected arguments based on anticipation and obviousness, particularly concerning technical limitations in resource scheduling.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of its IPR was rejected, leaving the Board’s earlier decision intact. The Patent Owner contended the petitioner introduced new arguments and failed to provide claim constructions, justifying the denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the Director’s order that denied institution of an IPR against Mullen’s 2021 wireless‑technology patent. They argue the Director misapplied discretionary denial standards, ignored the Sotera stipulation, and retroactively applied policy changes. The petition asks the Board to reinstate the original institution decision.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 USC 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit access.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to uphold the institution of IPR2025‑00019 against Mullen Industries’ patent 9,204,283. The brief emphasizes minimal claim overlap, strong petition merits, and the inapplicability of discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR against its wireless‑device‑location patent. The request argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the IPR would duplicate parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,122,418 patent. The owner contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung argue that the IPR covering Mullen Industries’ ’418 patent should remain instituted, emphasizing lack of overlap with district‑court litigation and strong merits. They contend that denying the petition would violate due process under §314(a).
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled all disputes surrounding U.S. Patent 10,740,281. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
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 LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology defends the PTAB’s claim construction for patent 8,565,331, asserting that “subsequently received signals” must be decoded after updating the channel estimate and that the Haustein reference does not teach the asserted limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google and others filed a Petition challenging the validity of Headwater Research LLC's patent on wireless end-user device traffic control policies. The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Montemurro, Freund, and Araujo.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against Headwater Research LLC's patent covering network capacity management and traffic prioritization. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Fadell, and Freund.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
A coalition of tech giants and wireless carriers, including Google LLC and Verizon Wireless, has filed an IPR petition against Headwater Research's '541 patent. The petitioners challenge the validity based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), citing combinations of prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Empire Technology Development LLC's patent related to channel estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is obvious over several distinct prior art references, including Haustein and Tang.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's IPR challenge against Headwater Research failed at the institution stage, with the PTAB denying the petition. The Board found that Google did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability over prior art Rao and 6 US 8,028,060 B1 for claims 79 and 83.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in its IPR against Headwater Research LLC regarding wireless network capacity management claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art references Rao and Fadell.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging five claims related to channel estimation in MIMO systems. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
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.