Short Summary
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
Detailed Summary
This Petition challenges 19 claims of patent 10951359, owned by Asustek Computer Inc., which relates to physical layer procedures and CORESET management in wireless communications. The petitioners argue that the claimed features are obvious in view of various prior art references, including Nogami, Chatterjee, NTT, and technical guidance from the 3GPP-Specification. Specifically, Ground 2 demonstrates obviousness combining Nogami with Chatterjee and NTT regarding slot boundary crossings, while Ground 3 relies on Nogami combined with 3GPP standards for expected UE behavior. The PTAB determined that the petition presented compelling merits and met institutional factors under § 314(a) and § 325(d), resulting in institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in AT&T Services Inc. et al. vs ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung and its co‑petitioners successfully proved that Netlist’s 10,949,339 B2 memory‑module patent was obvious over prior‑art references Ellsberry and Halbert. The PTAB declared all 35 challenged claims unpatentable.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Google LLCvsVirtaMove, Corp.
Google filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent 7,784,058. The Patent Owner may submit a brief response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
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.