Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 46 · 1,362 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google successfully oppose Headwater Research’s untimely Director Review request, leaving the PTAB’s finding that the ’733 patent’s claims are unpatentable intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research LLC seeks Director review of an IPR decision that found all claims of its 2013 MMS messaging patent unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board improperly relied on expert testimony because the cited prior art (TS-23.140) does not disclose the required agent communication bus. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision and terminate the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google have filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of a second IPR covering all 30 claims of Headwater’s ’733 patent. They argue the denial was improper and that the Patent Owner’s stipulation fails to protect their products from future litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google petitioned for a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent. The Board denied the request, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics challenged Headwater Research's patent (8406733) in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art combinations. The challenger asserts that combining teachings from Houghton and Ogawa, or Houghton-Ogawa with Hwang, renders the claimed device provisioning and secure communication methods predictable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung challenges Headwater Research's '733 Patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art standards (TS-23.140 and Ogawa). The petition asserts that combining existing communication protocols with symmetric encryption was predictable for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google's attempt to challenge Headwater Research's patent (8406733) was denied by the PTAB due to a parallel IPR proceeding already being active.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of Headwater Research's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding obviousness, leading to the institution of the case. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of wireless communication technology standards and prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Board found all challenged claims of patent 8406733 unpatentable over prior art references TS-23.140 and Ogawa by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on demonstrating that conventional design choices, such as using SSL/TLS and implementing modems, would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Entropic Communications' '759 patent, arguing that key concepts are obvious over prior art. The Board granted institution based on Fintiv factors and unique legal issues, allowing the IPR to proceed.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple challenges THL Holding Company's patent on location and tracking systems via an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art elements from mobile communication devices and Bluetooth technology. This action is part of ongoing litigation between the parties in District Court.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 11-19 unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Kalliola and other references taught or suggested multiple limitations, particularly regarding UWB DoA and location tracking. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the device location/ranging space.
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.