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
Microsoft CorporationvsSterling Computers Corporation
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s cybersecurity patent (12001549) because the petitioner, Orca Security Ltd., maintained inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal forums.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsDatonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent were obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Kangxi Communications TechnologiesvsSkyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
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.