Short Summary
OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.
Detailed Summary
In a Petition for Director Review (IPR2025-00887), OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. seeks reversal of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,372, which covers random access procedures in 4G/5G LTE networks. The petitioner contends that the Board relied on an improperly promulgated “settled expectations” rule from the Stewart Memo, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and ignored material examiner error—specifically the failure to consider prior‑art references Tenny (US 2011/0158116) and Yoo (US 2009/0279495). Citing Director precedent where similar discretionary denials were overturned, OnePlus argues that the large number and diverse scope of patents in parallel district‑court litigation further weigh against discretionary denial. The request asks the Director to vacate the denial and refer the case to the Board for substantive review.
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
Alvotech USA Inc. et al.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsUniversal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
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.