Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 44 of 46 · 1,362 total
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (8284690) in an IPR, arguing that the claimed wireless ranging and communication methods were anticipated or obvious by existing standards like IEEE-802.16 and DOCSIS-2.0. The challenge utilized multiple grounds of invalidity based on various prior art references including Waxman, Won, and Zuckerman.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding cable modem architecture claims 18 and 19 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal standard for institution, specifically failing to demonstrate obviousness over various prior art combinations.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding network monitoring technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness over various prior art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast Cable Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications' patent covering BCN modulation/bit-loading. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting the combination of prior art references as obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications lost its IPR challenge against Entropic Communications, LLC regarding claims related to cable network service group management. The PTAB denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence that the claimed features were obvious in light of prior art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Comcast's IPR against Entropic, finding insufficient evidence that prior art references (Saey and Gross) disclosed or suggested the claimed composite SNR-related metric. This decision reinforces the burden on petitioners to demonstrate specific support for key limitations in complex technical claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully argued that multiple claims in the patent were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to an institution decision by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertions of obviousness across various combinations of prior art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against the '690 patent, arguing that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious claims related to channel assessment probes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to the scheduling of trial.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding broadband network technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that the patent claims would be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that the prior art references, particularly Rabenko and Gaspar, rendered the claimed cable modem architecture obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically rejecting grounds based on Renken's architecture and Aggarwal's limitations. The Board concluded that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos for multi-channel functionality.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that several claims of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Key findings included that Claim 1 was anticipated by IEEE-802.16, and specific combinations of prior art rendered other claims obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1, 3, and 4 of the patent obvious over combinations of Afshary and Mirfakhraei. Claim 2 was not found obvious. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction for means-plus-function limitations, defining structures as processors or specific signal processing components.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering CDMA multi‑user detection, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Fuller, Reznik, Frank, and Zha.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Collision Communications, citing the Fintiv factors. The Board found that scheduling proximity and significant investment weighed heavily in favor of denying institution despite allegations of obviousness.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition concerning serial data transmission and symbol encoding (Patent No. 7154905). The Board found that while the petitioner raised obviousness arguments, the merits of the case were not sufficiently strong to overcome procedural hurdles.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo’s request for director review of the PTAB’s decision on its IPR challenging patent 7,623,439 was denied. The Board found the petitioner introduced new arguments and evidence not previously presented and failed to show good cause for submitting additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Collision Communications’ wireless signaling patent. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied prior art references and erred in finding a lack of particularity. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Petitioners challenge 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8089946, arguing they are obvious over prior art references like Walton and Learned. The central argument is that supporting legacy protocol modes in multi-user environments was a well-known concept in the field of wireless communications.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung petitions to invalidate Collision's '071 patent, arguing that its Multi-user Detection improvements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioners assert that prior art references (Jin, Baum, Tsai) combine known techniques in MIMO systems to render the claimed features non-inventive.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo challenged claims related to cyclic advancement in OFDM systems, arguing that the claimed novelty is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that 'cyclic advancement' is merely a predictable equivalent of known techniques found in prior art references like Dammann and Hervin.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Samsung against Collision Communications' patent covering Multiuser Detection (MUD) technology. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior art adequately taught the claimed unique signal parameters, leading to a lack of particularity in the arguments.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against Collision Communications was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board specifically cited deficiencies in how Samsung addressed critical limitations within the challenged claims using the prior art.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo's IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures over Cyclic Diversity Systems was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden regarding the prior art reference Dammann’s status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991, leading the USPTO to dismiss the Director Review request as moot and return the case to the Board.
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.