Short Summary
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure‑recovery patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Liu and Jover disclosures. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the patent.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00921, Apple Inc. petitions the PTAB to review U.S. Patent No. 10,568,113, owned by Apex Beam Technologies LLC, which covers methods and devices for beam failure recovery in wireless communications. Apple contends that claims 1‑20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0367374) and Jover (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0141026) references disclose all claim elements and were publicly available before the patent’s priority date. The petition highlights that the examiner omitted this prior art during prosecution and that the same techniques were discussed in 3GPP standards prior to filing. Apple requests that the Board institute the review and cancel all challenged claims, reserving the right to rebut any contrary arguments during the bifurcated briefing process.
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
Syngenta Crop Protection AGvsInflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of U.S. Patent 12,102,027 covering a prescriptive seed‑treatment method, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement.
Capital One, N.A. et al.vsWapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 hemostasis valve patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1, 3, and 4 of the patent obvious over combinations of Afshary and Mirfakhraei. Claim 2 was not found obvious. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction for means-plus-function limitations, defining structures as processors or specific signal processing components.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
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.