OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v. Pantech Corporation

IPR2025-00637

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00637
Filing Date
18 March 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00718

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.

patentIPR2024-00556

Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.

patentIPR2025-00422

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.

patentIPR2025-00544

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and violations of due process. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.

patentIPR2025-00717

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call