Split Federal Circuit Upholds Smart Mobile Patent Claims Against Challenge from Apple

"The court found that the PTAB's reading of the petition was the most natural understanding of the language Apple used. The dispute concerned U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943, which has a priority chain dating back to 1996 and is titled 'System to Interface Internet Protocol (IP) Based Wireless Devices With Subtasks and Channels.' The patent addresses a need for wireless devices to have multiple transmitters and receivers to improve signal fidelity and bandwidth."

"Apple initiated an IPR in May 2022, asserting that claims 1-9 and 12-20 of the '943 patent were obvious based on nine grounds involving six prior art references. In its final decision in December 2023, the PTAB agreed with Apple in part, holding claims 1, 5-9, and 12-14 unpatentable for obviousness. However, the PTAB upheld claims 2-4 and 15-20, finding that Apple had not provided adequate rationales for combining two specific pairs of prior art references."

"In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's findings on both challenges. The first argument involved claims 3 and 4, which Apple argued would have been obvious based on a combination of a European patent application known as 'Byrne' and other prior art references."

The Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision in an inter partes review proceeding initiated by Apple challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943 owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. The patent, with roots dating to 1996, addresses wireless device communication using multiple antennas and network components. Apple challenged claims 1-9 and 12-20 as obvious based on nine grounds involving six prior art references. The PTAB found claims 1, 5-9, and 12-14 unpatentable but upheld claims 2-4 and 15-20, determining Apple failed to provide adequate rationales for combining specific prior art references. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Taranto, affirmed the PTAB's findings on both challenges, with Judge Dyk issuing a partial dissent.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law