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
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.
Apple Inc.vsDH International Ltd.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 patent covering a portable electronic device with an invariable activation command, asserting obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s LTE‑Advanced CSI‑RS patent. The petition argues the decision misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA. It also points to examiner error in claim interpretation.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Director granted review of multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating prior institution decisions. The Board is now remanded to determine which single petition, out of two filed per patent, should be 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.