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
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsGreenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 10,603,183 covering spinal intervertebral cage devices. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art references Moskowitz 440, Waugh, and Michelson 019 and argues a priority-chain error that renders the references prior art under §102(b).
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’701 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Murashita, Marpe, and Yu. The petition targets all 20 claims and seeks their cancellation.
Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
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.