Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 46 · 1,362 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of Hannibal IP’s 5G beam‑management patent (US 11,641,661). The petition relies on Guo, Intel’s 3GPP proposal, and the 5G‑Standard to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Samsung's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,026,088. The owner contends the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are unsupported and misinterpret prior art. The Board is asked to refuse institution.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,026,088, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering wireless LAN permission and connection management.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review to overturn the institution of XiFi Networks’ patent, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and noting inconsistent claim‑construction positions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs brought by Samsung, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and requiring consistent claim construction positions.
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 Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR and PGR challenges, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in district court undermine their invalidity arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving Samsung’s institution of multiple Wi‑Fi patents intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks Director Review to overturn eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate PTAB policy and merit vacating institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi’s ’756 patent, asserting obviousness, patent‑ineligible subject matter, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on prior art Chincholi (WO 2013/126859) and Clegg (U.S. Patent 9,055,592).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate 29 claims of XiFi’s U.S. Pat. 12,250,564, alleging obviousness, patent‑ineligibility, lack of written description, and indefiniteness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed based on likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR challenge against XiFi Networks' patent 12169756 involving Samsung Electronics, allowing the review to proceed despite a stay.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00067 in a dispute between Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,606,204, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile authentication and key‑exchange techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,973,864, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art cryptographic references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and requests institution of the review.
American Airlines et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 802.11 dual‑mode communication patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’285 patent covering OFDM techniques. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that a discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of GenghisComm’s ’005 OFDM patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the patent is post‑AIA and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy’s petition to invalidate Earin’s wireless‑earbud patent was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach key claim limitations, so no reasonable likelihood of success was shown.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 20 and 21 of Earin's 9,402,120 wireless‑earbud patent. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Olodort, Guccione, Yamashita and the Bluetooth Spec. 4.1 as prior art. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and erred on factual grounds. It seeks review of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director review of a denied IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ ’336 patent was rejected, leaving the patent intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
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.