Short Summary
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00888, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 7, 9‑12, and 14‑16 of U.S. Patent 9,369,251 owned by Pantech Corporation. The petition asserts that the claimed PDSCH muting and CSI‑RS signaling methods are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior‑art references including Chandrasekhar‑I (US 2012/0264441), Chandrasekhar‑II (US 8,514,738), and a Texas Instruments 3GPP proposal. Grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and the petitioner requests cancellation of all challenged claims. The filing includes expert declarations and references to related district‑court litigation (EDTX).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. vs Pantech Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
United Services Automobile AssociationvsAuto Telematics Ltd.
The USPTO denied USAA's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00812, leaving the institution of the auto‑telematics patent intact.
Microsoft Corporation et al.vsX1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against X1 Discovery's patent over information retrieval claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, including Wilcox and Londergan. This decision allows Microsoft to proceed with challenging the validity of key search indexing patents.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,882,399) at the PTAB, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found merit in the arguments and decided to institute the IPR proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
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.