Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

IPR2025-00084

Ericsson has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00084, and the patent owner must respond within five days with a limited brief.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00084
Filing Date
15 November 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00839

NKT Photonics Inc. et al.vsOmni Continuum LLC

NKT Photonics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni Continuum's 7,433,116 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Shaw and Islam references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on 25 claims covering Raman‑based infrared light sources.

patentIPR2025-00231

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

The PTAB held that claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing them with claims 21‑26.

patentIPR2024-00959

Google LLCvs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).

patentIPR2024-01353

Alamar Biosciences, Inc.vsOlink Proteomics AB et al.

The petitioner failed to prove the obviousness of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7883848 in a Final Written Decision. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,' defining it as selecting associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide that exhibit the detectable trace.

patentIPR2025-00774

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call