Short Summary
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
Detailed Summary
In the IPR2025‑00637 petition, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. seeks inter‑ partes review of claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,763,283 owned by Pantech Corporation. The petitioner contends that the claimed radio‑link failure handling methods, especially the limitation requiring the user equipment to stop uplink transmission of PUSCH, PUCCH, and SRS to a secondary serving cell, are fully disclosed or suggested by three prior‑art references: US10,631,222 (Dudda), WO2014/110813 (Lin), and US2011/0134774 (Pelletier). The petition argues that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine these teachings, rendering the claims obvious, and that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) does not apply. The filing requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
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
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
The USPTO denied Rode Microphones' request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,276,207. The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
A PTAB memorandum issued July 29 2025 instructs panels to resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for IPRs and PGRs without an oral hearing, aiming for streamlined adjudication.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.
Apple Inc.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,979,128. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
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.