Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 38 of 46 · 1,362 total
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR rules to limit public disclosure.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR over Proxense’s Bluetooth proximity patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision finding Maxell’s claims unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored Samsung’s narrow “character” construction used in a district‑court jury trial. The Board denied the request, leaving the unpatentability findings in place.
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 home‑networking patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
Verizon Wireless and Cellco filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets claims 1-18, arguing that the patent is anticipated by prior art references including Limont and Wright.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in a PTAB petition, arguing the technology is obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner contends that existing hybrid devices integrating secure memory and reader circuits render the claimed digital key/reader systems unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's RFID authentication patents (8646042) in a Petition, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that existing technology discloses core elements of hybrid devices and proximity token systems. This proceeding is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Broadphone regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,594,698, specifically targeting Claim 23 based on obviousness.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Verizon Wireless's patent (9198042), finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references could be combined to teach secure execution environments for mobile data services.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Proxense, LLC's patent (10073960). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly regarding device authentication and secure memory.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in the IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding hybrid device technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) across multiple claims. This decision validates Google's position that the challenged patent is anticipated by prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding independent claim 23 of the '698 patent unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda. The Board adopted the petitioner's plain meaning for key claim terms related to signal strength comparisons.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
The Board found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Petitioner successfully argued that the combination of prior art references, including Limont, Wright, and Xu, disclosed the claimed invention. This final decision provides a strong defense against infringement claims in wireless communications technology.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed hybrid device and its methods were predictable combinations of prior art references like Buer, Lee, Nishikawa, and Dua.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. They argue the Board ignored Guidance, settled expectations, and failed to rule on a motion to terminate, warranting denial of institution.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Director Review requests have been filed for three IPRs involving Rode Microphones and Zaxcom’s wireless microphone patent. Rode must respond within five business days with a brief, issue‑limited filing.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL Electronics' IPR, arguing the petitioner's single ground is cumulative, lacks material error, and fails claim‑construction analysis. The owner contends the Board should reject institution.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Proxense’s ’289 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Proxense, LLC’s patent claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references (Dua, Giobbi '157, Kotola). The Board found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decisions denying institution of four IPRs targeting Secure Wi‑Fi patents, leaving the institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024‑01368, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB institution denial that relied on a rescinded Vidal memo. The petitioner contends lack of notice of retroactive effect and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors, seeking to submit a Sotera stipulation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the ‘384 Wi‑Fi patent. The challenger contends the retroactive rescission of the Vidal memo and the Board’s Fintiv factor analysis violated due process.
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.