Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 43 of 46 · 1,362 total
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications (Petitioner) challenges the validity of Entropic's patent, asserting that the claimed method for receiving digitized television signals is anticipated and obvious. The petition relies heavily on prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey to demonstrate multiple grounds of invalidity under 102 and 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully requested the institution of an IPR against Entropic Communications' '866 Patent, challenging all 82 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner asserts that numerous elements are disclosed by prior art references like Pugel, Crols, Chandrakasan, and Jensen ’170.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11,381,866) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combining Cholas and Petrovic with references like Rabaey, Maalej, Lee, and Takahiko to demonstrate non-patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's wideband receiver patent (9210362) in an IPR, arguing the claimed digital signal processing methods are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Pugel and Crols to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR challenging the validity of Entropic's wideband receiver system patent (9210362). The petitioner argues that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references like Petrovic and Eidson.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (9210362) in an IPR, asserting that the wideband receiver architecture is anticipated or obvious. The petitioner relies on various prior art references, including Zhang and Mirabbasi, to invalidate claims covering digital signal processing methods.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability of numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied heavily on combinations of prior art references, notably Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, to support its findings against the patent owner. This outcome significantly strengthens the petitioner's position in the ongoing litigation.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast's attempt to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent in a third parallel IPR was denied by the PTAB, citing procedural guidance against redundant petitions.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Entropic Communications, challenging 76 claims. The Board declined to use discretionary denial despite the petitioner's filing of multiple parallel proceedings.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast's attempt to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent was denied by the PTAB due to a previously instituted parallel proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute an IPR against Entropic's patent, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The Board determined that one petition was sufficient and denying the second would prevent unnecessary burden.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Comcast's claims against Entropic Communications. The grounds centered on anticipation and obviousness using prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's patent 11381866, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The decision emphasizes the Board's policy favoring single petitions for efficiency.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's wideband tuner patent (9210362) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition on the same claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Entropic's wideband receiver patent (9210362). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Comcast could prevail, allowing review of all 20 claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's petition to challenge patent 9210362, citing the existence of a parallel IPR proceeding that had already been instituted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The IPR concluded that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated claims 1-18 were unpatentable over prior art references based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a clear motivation to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding redesign complexity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 76 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,206 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily using Zhang et al. as primary prior art.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found all 82 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that Zhang et al. anticipates or renders obvious the claims through various combinations with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey. Key findings included that Zhang's demultiplexer/selector satisfies the DFE limitation, and 'concurrently' does not require zero delay.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the patent was anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Zhang et al., in combination with other cited references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenges Entropic's '775 Patent in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate lack of novelty and non-obviousness.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense's patent 8646042, asserting that the claims are obvious over various prior art references including Giobbi and Broadcom. The petitioner argues that combining disclosures of PDKs and RDCs makes the claimed hybrid device predictable for proximity-based access control.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic's '775 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art references. The petition details multiple combinations of references (e.g., Rabenko/Gaspar) to establish non-obviousness across numerous claim sets in the cable modem technology space.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast initiated an IPR against Entropic's '759 patent, challenging all 23 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The challenger argues that combinations of prior art references—including Gurantz and Grube—render the methods for bit-loading modulation unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's patent (US 10135682) via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The challenger relies on numerous grounds combining references like Cooper-Saey and Prodan-Jalali to demonstrate predictability in wireless communications technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR, arguing that prior art renders the core signal monitoring and reporting claims obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of references like Kamieniecki and Konstantinos to demonstrate that the claimed technology is a predictable evolution of existing cable television systems.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast challenges Entropic's '518 patent, arguing that the multi-carrier modulation and bit-loading technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that prior art references (Afshary, Mirfakhraei, Welles) combine to render all four claimed methods unpatentable.
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.