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
Anker Innovations Ltd.vsPowermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,083,204 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Samsara Inc.vsMotive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,529,305 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFractus, S.A.
Geotab’s IPR against Fractus’s LTE‑Band‑12 antenna patent was instituted, with the Board affirming that Baliarda‑543 anticipates the challenged claims and that the priority analysis is correct.
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.