Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-01496, Apple Inc. challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,889,347 owned by Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, asserting that the patent’s claims covering user‑focusing pre‑distortion techniques in wireless communication systems are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition identifies four grounds of obviousness, each relying on one or more prior‑art references—Hardacker (U.S. Patent Pub. 2010/0159855A1), Medbo (U.S. Patent Pub. 2014/0010274A1), and Wallace (U.S. Patent No. 6,473,467)—to show that each claim element is taught or would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Apple also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial and requests that the IPR be instituted. The petition references related IPRs and district‑court actions involving the same patent.
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 COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of iCashe’s NFC smartcard patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Bangs, Kerdraon, and Koh references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial does not apply.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al.vsIntelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al.vsSmart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’720 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering microphones, WLAN, speakers, and lighting. The petition highlights a deficient examiner search and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
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.