Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 46 · 1,362 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics files an IPR petition challenging Massively Broadband’s ’700 Patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Daley, Aaron and Scherzer. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’358 patent covering multiband antenna arrays. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Apple seeks dismissal as a co‑petitioner in an IPR over Headwater Research’s location‑service patent after the related Texas lawsuit was thrown out. The motion relies on procedural rules and lack of opposition from the patent owner.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Massively Broadband’s UWB repeater patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Apple, Amazon.com Services and AWS have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’571 patent covering secure device provisioning over wireless networks. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems from Chia, Cunningham and others.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that Samsung’s inconsistent claim constructions violate Board rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenges Maxell’s 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video transmitter that manages EDID information. The petitioner’s expert argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Funabiki, Guo, Fastert, and the E‑DDC Standard. No evidence of secondary considerations is presented.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Maxell’s U.S. 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video‑transmitter system. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness using four prior‑art references.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Headwater’s 9,615,192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references, arguing that the claimed features are obvious. No Board decision has been issued yet.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Headwater's MMS‑related patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of 3GPP standards and multiple prior‑art patents. The petition lists 14 distinct grounds, each tying specific claim limitations to prior references.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied American Airlines and Southwest Airlines’ petition to institute an IPR against Intellectual Ventures’ ’326 patent covering high‑data‑rate multi‑channel WLAN. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 18 challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dynamic Mesh Networks' 8,520,691 patent covering a structured wireless mesh network. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review to overturn the institution of Samsung’s Wi‑Fi patent, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient explanation of differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in district court and before the PTAB violate recent Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks’ U.S. Patent 12,114,177, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over earlier multi‑RAT systems disclosed in Chincholi and Clegg. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung successfully secured institution for its IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 12114177. The trial is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00875, keeping the challenge against Cellular South’s patent alive.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol challenged Credo’s patents in an ITC investigation involving mobile devices. The parties settled, and the Commission terminated the investigation after the ALJ approved the joint motion.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’792 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues strong merits and seeks institution, while disputing any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’508 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil-537 and secondary references Doufexi and Lucent. The petition argues strong merits and cites Fintiv factors to oppose discretionary denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate iCashe’s 8,403,219 patent covering smartcard integration in mobile phones. The petition relies on the Fox and Takekawa references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata Manufacturing’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing a holistic assessment and the Fintiv factors.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Murata’s challenge to Georgia Tech’s ’914 patent, finding no legal error in the decision.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against a Georgia Tech RF amplifier patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and ignored strong merits and Fintiv factors.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s 2015 noise‑reduction patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the petitioner failed to overcome settled‑expectations and the discretionary standards under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
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.