Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
415 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 14 · 415 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board adopted the Petitioner's analysis, concluding that the claimed technology was obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger and Treuhaft.
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.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00067 in a dispute between Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of Giobbi ’1573, Giobbi ’1394, and Dua. The Board successfully rejected arguments regarding means-plus-function interpretation, finding key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' conveyed sufficient definite structure. This decision represents a significant win for the Petitioner in this IPR proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Nokia regarding mobile device user interface claims related to locked-state application interaction. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
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.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Ginko LLC was denied by the PTAB, as the Board found insufficient evidence that cited prior art disclosed the claimed contact permission settings.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding priority and found that the specification adequately supported the combination of Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board upheld the validity of patent 9173054 after finding that the priority date (December 22, 2009) disqualified all cited prior art under Sections 102 and 103. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the ancestor application sufficiently described both Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer methods.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The Board found the claims unpatentable under 103(a) over Goossens2003 and Drake. The decision hinged on demonstrating that an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine a Network-on-Chip (NoC) architecture with a Quality of Service (QoS) management system for resource optimization.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found successful anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Rao.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Patent 8,589,541 unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that the prior art reference Rao sufficiently disclosed key elements for many claims.
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.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB found claims 25-28 unpatentable over Li and Siam, based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted a specific construction of 'idle power consumption' as power consumed while powered on and waiting to send data. However, the attempt to prove obviousness for claim 29 failed due to impermissible hindsight bias.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
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.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
The PTAB found multiple claims of the '430 patent unpatentable over prior art, primarily Taniguchi. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction that key claim terms were not limiting, supporting obviousness findings across several grounds.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims of Patent 8,270,578 B2 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found that prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong) taught the subject matter through obvious combinations.
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.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 9706500. The review will examine claims related to transmit power control in wireless networks.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR petition against S.M.R Innovations, finding no reasonable likelihood that the 'apparatus for rerouting data' patent would be invalidated based on prior art references like Chihara and BluetoothSpec.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding several claims, focusing on how prior art combines to teach all limitations of the asserted claims in data routing and multimedia transmission technology.
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.