patent litigation

PTAB Upholds Wireless Patent Against Nokia and Ericsson

by

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has ruled against Nokia and Ericsson in their bid to invalidate a wireless communication patent. The decision preserves 15 key claims from U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, which focuses on improving data transmission and reducing interference in modern wireless systems.

The ruling marks a significant win for the patent owner, reinforcing the validity of technology used in advanced communication networks.

Patent Focus: Beamforming and Signal Optimization

The patent centers on beamforming and signal management techniques that enhance communication between multiple antennas. It aims to minimize interference, strengthen data transfer, and improve overall network efficiency—core elements in 5G and future wireless infrastructure.

The PTAB concluded that Nokia and Ericsson did not present sufficient evidence to prove the patent claims were unpatentable. The Board found that the prior art references and expert testimony failed to demonstrate clear overlap with the patented invention.

PTAB Rejects Invalidity Arguments

Both telecom companies had argued that the patent’s claims were invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. However, the Board determined that the patent represented a distinct technical advancement in wireless signal processing.

This decision reflects the PTAB’s increasingly rigorous approach to inter partes review (IPR) petitions, particularly in cases involving next-generation communication technologies.

Legal and Industry Implications

The outcome limits Nokia and Ericsson’s ability to use similar invalidity arguments in any future litigation under AIA estoppel provisions. It also strengthens the patent holder’s position in ongoing and future licensing discussions, potentially increasing royalty demands.

Industry experts suggest that the ruling reinforces the importance of robust patent strategies as 5G innovation continues to expand globally. The case highlights how high-value patents in wireless communication remain key competitive assets in the telecom sector.

Broader Context: PTAB’s Changing Dynamics

The PTAB has shown a trend toward upholding more patents amid a rise in challenges from major technology firms. Recent patterns suggest a stricter review process, with the Board emphasizing the need for strong technical and evidentiary support in IPR filings.

This shift may encourage companies to pursue collaborative licensing or design-around strategies rather than relying solely on invalidity petitions to weaken competitors’ portfolios.

What’s Next for Nokia and Ericsson

Both firms are expected to evaluate their legal options, including a potential appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, appellate courts typically give deference to the PTAB’s technical findings, making reversals rare.

The decision is likely to influence future patent challenges involving wireless infrastructure, signal processing, and 5G deployment technologies, where innovation and patent rights remain critical to market leadership.

Nike-New Balance Patent Lawsuit Paused Amid PTAB Review, Judge Rules

by

A federal judge has paused a high-stakes patent dispute between global sportswear giants Nike Inc. and New Balance Athletics, Inc., granting a temporary stay in litigation as the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviews several of Nike’s Flyknit patents at the heart of the case.

On June 6, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick ruled in favor of New Balance’s motion to stay the case until August 9, 2025, aligning with the expected PTAB decisions. Nike alleges that New Balance infringed on nine of its Flyknit patents across 61 different shoe models, claiming that the Boston-based company copied its innovative, lightweight knit sneaker technology.

New Balance requested the pause, citing that the PTAB is already actively reviewing six of the nine contested patents. The company argued that a stay would promote judicial efficiency and possibly narrow or eliminate the need for trial if some patents are invalidated.

Judge Kobick, in her ruling, agreed with New Balance’s position, stating that continuing the case while the PTAB deliberates could lead to duplicative proceedings. “Nike has not shown that it will suffer undue prejudice beyond the delay,” Kobick noted, indicating that a short pause would not cause significant harm to the plaintiff.

The judge also highlighted New Balance’s commitment to continue discovery during the stay, including the collection of documents and depositions from international partners. This assurance helped alleviate concerns about lost evidence or unavailable witnesses during the delay.

Nike’s Flyknit technology, first introduced in 2012, is considered a major breakthrough in performance footwear design. The company holds several patents on the material structure, stitching techniques, and manufacturing methods used to create a sock-like fit with minimal waste. Nike contends that New Balance’s knit-based designs unlawfully mirror its patented Flyknit technology.

If the PTAB invalidates some or all of the Flyknit patents under review, it could significantly alter the direction of the case, weakening Nike’s claims and reducing the number of infringing products. Conversely, if the patents are upheld, New Balance may face greater legal exposure and could be required to stop sales or negotiate licensing terms.

The litigation pause is temporary, with proceedings expected to resume following the PTAB’s decisions in August. The outcome will be closely watched by the industry, as it may set a precedent for how similar intellectual property disputes are handled between major athletic brands.

For now, both companies await the PTAB’s judgment, which could either simplify the lawsuit—or set the stage for a prolonged legal battle over innovation in athletic footwear.

Uber Faces Patent Lawsuit from Carma Technology Over Ride-Sharing Platform

by

Uber Technologies Inc. is currently facing a patent infringement lawsuit which is  filed by Carma Technology Corp. and Carma Technology Ltd. The lawsuit, initiated on January 14, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that Uber’s ride-sharing platform infringes upon Carma’s patented technologies related to shared transportation systems. 

Details of the Lawsuit

Carma Technology, known for its innovations in ride-sharing solutions, holds several patents, including U.S. Patent No. US11574542B2, titled “Systems and methods for providing safety for drivers and riders in a shared transport system.”   The company claims that Uber’s platform utilizes technologies that infringe upon this and potentially other patents held by Carma.

The case, docketed as 2:2025cv00029, is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.  Carma has demanded a jury trial, seeking damages and an injunction against Uber to prevent further alleged infringement. 

Potential Implications for Uber

If the court rules in favor of Carma Technology, Uber may face significant consequences, including financial penalties and the need to alter its ride-sharing platform to avoid further infringement.  Such changes could disrupt Uber’s operations and impact its position in the competitive ride-sharing market.

This lawsuit adds to Uber’s history of legal challenges related to intellectual property.  Notably, in 2018, Uber settled a lawsuit with Waymo, Alphabet Inc.’s self-driving car unit, agreeing to pay $245 million over allegations of trade secret theft. 

Broader Impact on the Ride-Sharing Industry

The outcome of this case could have broader implications for the ride-sharing industry.  A ruling favoring Carma Technology might prompt other companies to re-evaluate their platforms for potential patent infringements, leading to increased litigation and a push for innovation that respects existing intellectual property rights.

As the case progresses, stakeholders in the ride-sharing sector will be closely monitoring developments, understanding that the verdict could set a precedent affecting technology deployment and competitive dynamics in the industry.

*This article is based on publicly available information as of June 1, 2025.*