Executive Summary
Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ericsson Inc. et al. vs Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
LiveIntent, Inc. et al.vsAlmondNet, Inc.
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
Meta Platforms Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Mullen Industries’ location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 10,179,277). The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing Jaszlics and Rallison as prior art, and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,793,336 patent covering web‑based content sharing on mobile devices, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Yahoo! club technology and related references.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
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.