Executive Summary
AT&T has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of USTA’s ’720 patent claims, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art MIMO and Wi‑Fi standards. The petition relies on Walton, IEEE 802.11a, Hamabe, and Gubbi references.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00895 covering U.S. Patent 10,568,113. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al.vsTrina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficient to teach the claimed solar cell structure. This decision validates the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness in photovoltaic technology.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc.vsSitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,898,014, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails on both the Walker prior‑art and Kelly obviousness grounds, citing lack of written‑description support and missing disclosures for key claim limitations.
National Beef Packing Company, LLCvsInstitute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled all disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPRs. The Board is asked to grant termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) per established precedent.
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.