Short Summary
The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.
Detailed Summary
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging four independent claims (4, 5, 10, and 11) of Daingean Technologies Ltd.'s patent 11,196,509 B2. The review focused on the technical features related to code block segmentation within a terminal apparatus for communication. After conducting claim construction, which established that the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' requires at least one Code Block Group (CBG) to include each of the multiple Code Blocks (CBs), the Board analyzed the grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Lee and Zheng. The Board ultimately denied institution because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that its arguments would prevail.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in AT&T Corp et al. vs Daingean Technologies Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential. The parties seek to have Exhibit 1029 treated as business confidential information and separated from the patent file.
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Doughty, Abe, and others.
Arm Ltd.vsICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Ltd.’s semiconductor‑device patent. The patent owner argues the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and should deny institution due to untimely stipulations and parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung Electronics and Headwater Research settled their disputes across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00482, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The petitioner also withdrew its request for Director Review or Rehearing.
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.