Short Summary
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Detailed Summary
In Petitioners’ Request for Director Review (IPR2024‑00992), a coalition of major telecom operators—including AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon, Ericsson, and Nokia—challenge the PTAB panel’s denial of institution of an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,359 owned by ASUS Technology Licensing. The petition contends that the panel erred in its analysis of the prior‑art references (Nogami, NTT, Chatterjee, and the 3GPP Specification) across three grounds, failed to give proper weight to extensive expert testimony, and misapplied the Fintiv factors, particularly over‑weighing Factor 2 contrary to Director guidance. Citing statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 314(a), the petition requests that the Director grant review and institute 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 ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G’s request to overturn the PTAB’s findings that claim 8 of the ’706 deodorant‑stick patent is obvious. The petitioner argues the Board correctly applied the ASTM D‑1321 standard and rejected P&G’s RPI arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 35 claims of the ’686 semiconductor device patent owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process. The petition alleges examiner error and that multiple prior‑art references render the claims anticipated or obvious.
Google LLCvs--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 8,438,120, which covers hyper‑parameter optimization for machine‑learning classifiers. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and asks the PTAB to institute the trial.
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.