Short Summary
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2021 patent on automatic number identification, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Har and Miller.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00362), AT&T Services Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and Nokia of America Corporation challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,005,989, titled “Validating Automatic Number Identification Data.” The petition asserts that claims 1‑28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because they are obvious in view of two prior‑art references: Har (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0144198) and Miller (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0201381). The petition also addresses Fintiv discretionary factors, arguing that the evidence of unpatentability is compelling and that institution should not be denied. No claim construction or final decision is provided, as the document is a petition seeking institution of the IPR.
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 RightQuestion, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC
Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.
Tableau Software, LLC et al.vsiCharts LLC
iCharts LLC seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2012 data‑visualization patent, arguing the case would duplicate district‑court litigation and waste Board resources.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.vsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
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.