Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Collision Communications, Inc.

IPR2024-01500

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' U.S. Patent 7,463,703 covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts that all five claims are obvious under §103 by combining prior‑art references such as Brommer, Lilleberg, Hottinen, Learned, ElGamal, Frank and Zha.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01500
Filing Date
30 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00413

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC

Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over existing driver‑authentication and vehicle‑monitoring technologies. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.

patentIPR2024-00495

Microchip Technology, Inc.vsAptiv Technologies AG et al.

The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.

patentIPR2024-01221

Early Warning Services, LLCvsIntellectual Ventures II LLC

The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence for Early Warning Services, LLC to challenge numerous claims of Intellectual Ventures II LLC based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning for key terms like 'embedded,' rejecting restrictive interpretations by the Patent Owner.

patentIPR2025-01342

Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC

The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01342 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patentIPR2025-00207

Arm Ltd et al.vsDAEDALUS PRIME LLC

The Director granted review and vacated a denial of institution for Arm Ltd against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, referring the IPR back to the Board after parallel litigation was dismissed.

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