Executive Summary
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00720 and related cases, leaving the original denial in place.
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
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Kim, Park, and Fang.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding progressive menu sliding during gesture detection.
Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against U.S. Patent 10,123,074, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Avellan. The decision confirmed that 'content provider' does not require originating the request.
Avidbots Corporation et al.vsBrain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
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.