Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 46 · 1,362 total
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’775 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Boelter, Gruber, and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 25 claims of MessageLoud's 9,591,117 patent covering hands‑free message notification, citing Boelter, Gruber and Polak as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’725 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of MessageLoud’s ’728 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC,
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Cobblestone Wireless’s 2011 patent covering simultaneous transmission over multiple RF frequencies, asserting obviousness over Rofougaran and Shearer references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that ‘mobile terminal’ means a cellular phone and urging the Board to deny institution.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Ginko’s U.S. Pat. 11,025,573, asserting obviousness over the Robertson and Ahuja prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims to nullify Ginko’s infringement allegations.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Ginko LLC was denied by the PTAB, as the Board found insufficient evidence that cited prior art disclosed the claimed contact permission settings.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 9‑13 of Dynamic Mesh Networks' U.S. Patent 7,885,243, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art mesh networking references.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Nokia’s 9,036,701 patent. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy benefits of settlement.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA and Nokia Technologies have settled the IPR on Nokia's U.S. Patent No. 9,036,701 and jointly request the Board to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding as to Hisense.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based proximity detection and mobile payments, citing obviousness over Barnett, Waters, Wang and Sakamoto references.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie's ’305 patent covering space‑time coding, asserting that claims 1‑3 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over several earlier patents. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of Cisco’s IPR petition covering 21 claims of a 2008 wireless‑mesh patent, arguing settled expectations, weak invalidity grounds, and unfavorable Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of One‑E‑Way’s wireless audio patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a broken priority chain.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’952 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Ganz, Srikrishna, Bishop and the IEEE 802.11 standard.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims of U.S. Patent 11,368,537, prompting a petition for Director Review to block the institution of Cisco's IPR. The patent owner argues that the disclaimer bars any IPR under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to Dynamic Mesh Networks’ request for director review, stating it takes no position and defers to the Director’s discretion.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung and several major carriers settled their inter partes review of Headwater’s wireless patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 34 claims of Headwater’s ’868 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Jarvinen and Fox publications. The petition seeks institution of review and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP asks the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung knew of the patent for years, and the parallel litigation will finish before a PTAB decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks a discretionary denial of Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung had prior knowledge, and the district‑court trial will precede any PTAB decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
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.