Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
415 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 14 · 415 total
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD was denied by the PTAB, finding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for institution on obviousness grounds (103). The Board specifically found that prior art references did not teach scanning for pre-identified compatible devices as required by the claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against a wireless communications patent covering network service plan provisioning. The Petitioner, Cellco/Verizon Wireless et al., successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This sets the stage for a full trial proceeding on all 42 challenged claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. successfully challenged Headwater Research LLC's patent (8924543) on grounds of obviousness, leading to the institution of the IPR proceeding. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references Poh and Maes rendered the claimed network service provisioning system obvious.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (10630505) regarding Global Virtual Network optimization claims. The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness over prior art combinations, specifically citing Hankins and Munger for several key claims.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Active Wireless Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR PUCCH design claims. The Board found compelling evidence of unpatentability, despite initial concerns raised by the Patent Owner's arguments.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
A group of major carriers, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson, challenged the validity of a patent owned by Wireless Alliance using obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution, finding that the petition lacked compelling merits despite the advanced stage of related district court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon's IPR petition against Nokia regarding video coding methods was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Koga and Lin. The Board relied on claim construction distinguishing 'spatial samples' from 'decoded spatial information.'
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to properly construe means-plus-function claim terms under Rule 104(b)(3).
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Ericsson Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against Active Wireless Technologies LLC, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability under 102 and 103. The Board determined that the preliminary record supported a meritorious challenge regarding HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms in 5G NR PUCCH format adaptation.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Empire Technology Development's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art. The Board preliminarily adopted a broad definition of 'idle power consumption,' setting the stage for a detailed examination of technical combination possibilities.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's IPR challenge against Headwater Research failed at the institution stage, with the PTAB denying the petition. The Board found that Google did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability over prior art Rao and 6 US 8,028,060 B1 for claims 79 and 83.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in its IPR against Headwater Research LLC regarding wireless network capacity management claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art references Rao and Fadell.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged the patentability of a wideband receiver system used in cable TV reception. The petitioner argues that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Cholas, Petrovic, Lee, and Takahiko. This petition seeks to invalidate the patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments (Petitioner) successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review petition against ParkerVision's patent (9118528). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over combinations including Tayloe, TI Datasheet, and Macnally.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated successfully challenged ParkerVision's patent claims regarding RF signal processing via an IPR petition. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to the institution of the case for substantive analysis.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments (TI) successfully secured the institution of its IPR against ParkerVision, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that TI's evidence was sufficient at this stage to overcome arguments regarding inherency and simulation data reliability.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against patent 10,129,590, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that multiple combinations of prior art references—including N93 and various technical specifications—met the criteria for institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung successfully secured institution in this IPR against Maxell, challenging numerous claims of patent 11445241. The Board found sufficient evidence regarding prior art combinations involving N93, Dua, and Herle. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Broadphone regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,594,698, specifically targeting Claim 23 based on obviousness.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in the IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding hybrid device technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) across multiple claims. This decision validates Google's position that the challenged patent is anticipated by prior art combinations.
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.