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
Cisco Systems, Inc.vs--
Cisco Systems has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,780,887, asserting that its ten claims are obvious over the Pankratov prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsValtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy, together with Malikie Innovations, filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement that resolves their dispute over a smart‑home energy patent.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
Microchip Technology, Inc.vsAptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv has filed objections to more than 40 exhibits submitted by Microchip in IPR2024‑00495, arguing they are irrelevant, lack foundation, or contain hearsay. The objections cite Federal Rules of Evidence and seek to exclude the material from the trial that has already been instituted.
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.