Executive Summary
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging 14 claims of ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '658 patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments center on combining various prior art references, including Lindh, Tooher, Kim, and 3GPP specifications, to demonstrate that the claimed LTE network methods were predictable.
Trove Brands, LLC et al.vsVista Outdoor Operations LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Trove Brands against CamelBak's patent 8905252, finding that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability over Samartgis and Leoncavallo.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned to keep an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors supports institution, and the petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsCyandia, Inc.
Cyandia files a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its notification‑method patent, asserting the Board’s claim construction is inconsistent with the district court and the patent’s plain language.
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.
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.