Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In a rehearing order dated December 15, 2025, the USPTO Director denied OnePlus Technology’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00720 (patent 9,769,776) and three other parallel IPRs. The Board, after reviewing the parties’ filings, found no basis to overturn the original institution denials and therefore upheld the status quo. The decision reinforces the limited scope of discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on its 3D memory patent is contested. The Board found no error in rejecting Micron’s obviousness arguments based on Toyama, and the response urges denial of the review request.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.
RingConn, LLCvsOuraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 defects. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
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.