Short Summary
Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00083 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,638,463, a group of major telecom operators—including Ericsson, Nokia, Google, AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile—jointly filed a motion to partially terminate the inter‑ partes review as to AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile. The motion is predicated on binding term sheets executed between each carrier, KT Corporation, and Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC, which resolve all outstanding disputes and have already led to dismissals of the corresponding district‑court infringement actions. Citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and the Patent Trial Practice Guide, the parties argue that the Board should honor the settlement and terminate the proceeding before any merits are decided, preserving resources and avoiding prejudice. Non‑moving petitioners have not objected, supporting the request for partial termination.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ericsson Inc. et al. vs Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services entered a confidential settlement with U.S. Well Services, filing a joint request to keep the agreement private and to terminate the IPR covering a modular switchgear patent for electric oilfield equipment.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC regarding augmented reality and location-based gaming claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Levesque and Ronzani, setting the stage for trial.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent claim construction arguments in related litigation versus before the Board. This decision reinforces precedents requiring petitioners to maintain a single, consistent interpretation of patent claims.
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
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.