Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 36 of 46 · 1,362 total
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility and co‑petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on their UWB train‑control patent. They argue the Board wrongly treated a cited patent number as previously presented art and erred in finding the prior art was substantially the same as that considered during prosecution.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate Hangzhou ZH Tech’s ’855 patent covering a walkie‑talkie mount for earmuffs, asserting obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of enablement/written description across all 19 claims.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioner Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges 20 claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '234 Patent based on obviousness (103). The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, particularly Leaning, Klements, and Gamble, to show that the adaptive bitrate content streaming technology was already known.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc. petitioned to invalidate ParkerVision's '686 Patent claims based on obviousness (§103). The petition asserts that the claimed multi-platform communication modules are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Nevo and Avitabile, and Young/Estabrook.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated initiated an IPR challenging ParkerVision's frequency down-conversion receiver claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references, including Tayloe and Macnally, render the claimed apparatus obvious.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments filed a Petition challenging ParkerVision's patent claims related to RF signal processing and down-conversion. The core argument centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103), asserting that the claimed methods are merely combinations of known prior art techniques.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's down-converter patent (7496342). The petition asserts that claims are obvious over prior art references, including DeMaw and Macnally. This challenge targets key technology in wireless communications.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments (Petitioner) successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review petition against ParkerVision's patent (9118528). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over combinations including Tayloe, TI Datasheet, and Macnally.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated successfully challenged ParkerVision's patent claims regarding RF signal processing via an IPR petition. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to the institution of the case for substantive analysis.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments (TI) successfully secured the institution of its IPR against ParkerVision, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that TI's evidence was sufficient at this stage to overcome arguments regarding inherency and simulation data reliability.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB erred in instituting an IPR against Samsung by ignoring the Fintiv factors and the rescinded 2022 Guidance Memo. The company seeks a denial of institution and an extension of the filing deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's patent covering multi-radio cellular functionality, simultaneous video/data transfer, and over-the-air updates. The petition argues these features were obvious combinations of prior art references like N93 and Dua. This IPR targets 27 claims across five distinct grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung successfully secured institution in this IPR against Maxell, challenging numerous claims of patent 11445241. The Board found sufficient evidence regarding prior art combinations involving N93, Dua, and Herle. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR disputes over four wireless patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement documents confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over Nokia's wireless‑technology patent and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, asking the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,036,273 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,280,599 and have jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469, leading to a joint motion that terminated four related inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its HomeRF‑based cellular‑call routing patent obvious. The Patent Owners contend the Board introduced a new adaptation rationale not raised by Apple, violating procedural rules.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged WLAN routing claims non‑obvious, emphasizing that unclaimed details like transcoding are routine. The Director’s request for review was denied, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
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.