Short Summary
AT&T and other telecom operators seek Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against ASUS’s 5G QoS patent, alleging the panel ignored prior‑art disclosures and expert testimony.
Detailed Summary
In Petitioners’ Request for Director Review (IPR2024‑00997), AT&T Services, T‑Mobile, Verizon, Ericsson, and Nokia challenge the PTAB panel’s denial of institution for an inter‑ partes review of ASUS Technology Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 10,798,754 covering 5G QoS signaling. The petition contends the panel erred by disregarding explicit disclosures in prior‑art references (R2‑1704250, R2‑1706381) and by discounting expert testimony, leading to an improper finding that the petitioners failed to meet the compelling‑merits threshold under Fintiv Factor 6. It also argues the panel misapplied Director guidance on Fintiv factors, over‑weighting Factor 2. The petitioners request that the Director overturn the denial 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
Amphenol CorporationvsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol petitions the PTAB to invalidate Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, asserting that prior‑art references render all twenty claims obvious. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01431 after reviewing the merits and finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-discretionary factors.
NVIDIA CorporationvsOnesta IP, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Onesta IP's U.S. Patent 11,841,803.
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.