Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 35 of 46 · 1,362 total
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding a wideband receiver patent. The denial was based on the existence of another parallel petition covering the same claims.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Headwater’s request for Director Review of the Board’s institution of IPR2024‑01407. Samsung contends the institution was proper, based on prior‑art disclosures and a correct Fintiv analysis, and that Headwater’s alleged prejudice is unfounded.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research asks the PTAB Director to terminate Samsung's IPR after arguing the Board relied on a non‑petitioner theory and misapplied discretionary denial factors. The request targets the institution of claim 26 of U.S. Patent 9,179,359.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Headwater Research, vacating a prior institution decision after reviewing the merits and procedural factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung challenged Headwater's patent (9179359) in an IPR proceeding focused on network traffic control claims. The PTAB granted institution, allowing Samsung to proceed with its § 103 obviousness challenge against Claim 26 using Shell and Cole prior art.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to properly construe means-plus-function claim terms under Rule 104(b)(3).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,051,306, leading the PTAB to terminate four related inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge patent 10715235 in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art related to Butler matrix technology. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and granted institution.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in its IPR against XR Communications LLC. The challenge focused on whether multi-beam directed signal systems were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art references Agee and Butler.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the petitioner's contentions that the patent was unpatentable over Agee or in combination with Butler. The Board found Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, specifically regarding how prior art disclosed critical signal processing limitations.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless jointly request that their 5G NR settlement be kept confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s Bluetooth streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also designated as business‑confidential information.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless Technologies have settled their 5G NR patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues that Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered, the petition lacks merit, and discretionary factors favor denial given parallel district‑court litigation.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major carriers including AT&T and T-Mobile have filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,736,883, which covers cellular network inter-node connectivity methods. The Petitioners argue that the patent is invalid under Sections 102 and 103 based on prior art references Centonza and Han.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson filed a Petition challenging Active Wireless Technologies' patent on 5G HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang and Yang under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Maxell's U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed features related to multi-radio cellular phones and video processing are merely combinations of existing prior art.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T Services Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims were unpatentable over prior art references Centonza and Han. The Board denied institution, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either anticipation or obviousness grounds. This decision maintains the validity of Innovative Sonic Limited's patent in cellular network connectivity.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Ericsson Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against Active Wireless Technologies LLC, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability under 102 and 103. The Board determined that the preliminary record supported a meritorious challenge regarding HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms in 5G NR PUCCH format adaptation.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against patent 10,129,590, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that multiple combinations of prior art references—including N93 and various technical specifications—met the criteria for institution.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against U.S. Patent No. 8,934,359 in a Passive Optical Networks (PON) dispute. The petition asserts that combining ITU-T G.984.3 and Khermosh discloses all claimed method elements related to burst overhead management.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia filed a petition challenging claims in the '892 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on combining prior art standards (ITU-T) and publications to demonstrate that claimed power management features are predictable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Petitioners challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,806,892 in a PTAB petition, arguing that several claims related to power management in optical networks are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely on combining industry standards (G.987.3, G.988) with technical disclosures from prior art references like Röger and Ghazisaidi.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Iarnach Technologies Limited's patent (9806892) on grounds of obviousness in passive optical networks (PON). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims based on combinations of prior art references.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.
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.