Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
415 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 14 · 415 total
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
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability of numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied heavily on combinations of prior art references, notably Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, to support its findings against the patent owner. This outcome significantly strengthens the petitioner's position in the ongoing litigation.
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's attempt to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent in a third parallel IPR was denied by the PTAB, citing procedural guidance against redundant petitions.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Entropic Communications, challenging 76 claims. The Board declined to use discretionary denial despite the petitioner's filing of multiple parallel proceedings.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast's attempt to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent was denied by the PTAB due to a previously instituted parallel proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute an IPR against Entropic's patent, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The Board determined that one petition was sufficient and denying the second would prevent unnecessary burden.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Comcast's claims against Entropic Communications. The grounds centered on anticipation and obviousness using prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's patent 11381866, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The decision emphasizes the Board's policy favoring single petitions for efficiency.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's wideband tuner patent (9210362) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition on the same claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Entropic's wideband receiver patent (9210362). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Comcast could prevail, allowing review of all 20 claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's petition to challenge patent 9210362, citing the existence of a parallel IPR proceeding that had already been instituted.
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.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR against Daingean Technologies Ltd., finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-4. The challenge centers on whether prior art (Lee et al. and Brismar et al.) anticipates or renders obvious the methods for managing System Information Blocks in wireless networks.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent 8265096, finding no reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prove unpatentability. The denial hinged on the Board's rejection of anticipation arguments based on prior art related to wireless data formats.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully challenged seven claims of UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board preliminarily found that the claimed invention was obvious over the prior art reference Agarwala and general knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
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.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia's IPR petition against XR Communications LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the petitioner did not persuasively show that prior art constituted 'pre-equalization.'
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to trial on all challenged claims of STA Group's patent (8145249). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against multiple prior art references. This decision moves the dispute toward full trial, significantly advancing Motorola's position.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Proxense, LLC’s patent claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references (Dua, Giobbi '157, Kotola). The Board found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims of the '593 patent unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's view on claim construction for "power efficiency," allowing indirect measurements (voltage/current) rather than strictly a ratio, which was key to establishing obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung challenges an ASUS patent regarding 5G NR power control and PHR triggering using multiple prior art references including Ericsson and Huawei. The core argument is obviousness based on predictable combinations within industry standard-setting documents.
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 L.L.C.'s IPR petition against Entropic Communications LLC's '566 patent was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board rejected all asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding obviousness over various prior art combinations in OFDMA/Spectrum Sharing technology.
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.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
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.