Short Summary
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G semi‑persistent scheduling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Fakoorian‑1, Fakoorian‑2, and Takahashi. The petition presents three §103 grounds and seeks institution of the review.
Detailed Summary
In an Inter Partes Review petition (IPR2025-00908), Apple Inc. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,108,639 owned by Apex Beam Technologies LLC. The patent claims a wireless device that provides feedback for semi‑persistent scheduling (SPS) release in LTE/5G networks. Apple asserts that claims 1‑20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of three prior‑art references: Fakoorian‑1 (US20230084754A1), Fakoorian‑2 (US11464001), and Takahashi (WO2021064961A1). The petition delineates three separate grounds—Ground 1 (Fakoorian‑1 + Takahashi), Ground 2A (Fakoorian‑2), and Ground 2B (Fakoorian‑2 + Takahashi)—each covering the entire claim set. Apple seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims, while also noting related district‑court litigation in Texas.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs Apex Beam Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the patent owner’s request for Director Review of IPR2025‑00718, arguing procedural errors, misstatements in prosecution, and that the PTAB is the proper forum. The petition seeks denial of the Director’s discretionary denial under §315(d).
Apple Inc.vsCOBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Sony CorporationvsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple’s inter partes review petition against a load‑balancing patent, finding the obviousness arguments over Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski insufficiently particularized. No claims were instituted or found unpatentable.
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.