OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Pantech Wireless, LLC

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Pantech Wireless, LLC (IPR2025-00763) is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding currently pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This IPR was filed by OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer known for designing, developing, manufacturing, and marketing smartphones and related accessories. The IPR challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, owned by Pantech Wireless, LLC. Pantech Wireless, LLC operates as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), being a subsidiary of Pantech Corporation, which is wholly owned by the patent monetization firm Ideahub, Inc. Pantech, formerly a major South Korean mobile phone manufacturer, exited the industry in 2017 and transferred its substantial patent portfolio to Ideahub in 2020 for monetization.

This IPR is directly related to ongoing patent infringement litigation where Pantech Wireless, LLC has accused OnePlus's smartphones and other devices, particularly those compliant with LTE, LTE-A, and/or 5G cellular network standards, of infringement. Pantech has filed multiple infringement lawsuits against OnePlus in the Eastern District of Texas, including a case (5:22-cv-00069-RWS) where a jury found OnePlus had willfully infringed several of Pantech's patents, including standard essential patents (SEPs). While the specific technical details of U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838 are not readily available in the provided search snippets, it is part of a broader portfolio of wireless communication and user interface technologies asserted by Pantech. The procedural posture of IPR2025-00763 is a pending institution decision, meaning the PTAB has yet to determine whether to initiate a formal review of the patent's validity.

The case is notable due to Pantech's strategy as an NPE, asserting a large portfolio of acquired patents against major device manufacturers like OnePlus. The IPR serves as a defensive measure by OnePlus against these assertions, highlighting the significant interplay between district court litigation and PTAB validity challenges. The history of the parties' disputes includes jury verdicts of infringement and findings of willfulness in district court, alongside allegations of OnePlus's refusal to license on FRAND terms. The PTAB's decisions on institution, particularly in the context of parallel district court cases and standard-essential patents, are closely watched for their impact on patent enforcement and validity challenges in the telecommunications industry. The PTAB recently issued decisions regarding other IPRs filed by OnePlus against Pantech, with one petition (IPR2025-00783) being denied institution while another (IPR2025-00762) proceeded to a merits review.

The provided case, IPR2025-00763, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. An IPR is a proceeding to review the patentability of claims in an issued patent. While the IPR itself has a specific timeline and events, its existence often relates to a parallel patent infringement litigation in a district court.

Given that the IPR was filed on 2025-05-14 and a decision on institution is pending, this document will first address the IPR's status and then search for any related district court patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Pantech Wireless, LLC.

I. Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00763) Developments

• Filing of Petition (2025-05-14): OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00763) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838.
• Status: Pending Institution Decision: As of today's date (2026-05-16), the PTAB has not yet issued a decision on whether to institute the IPR. The statutory deadline for an institution decision is typically one year from the filing of the petition. Given the petition was filed on 2025-05-14, the decision is overdue or has recently occurred.

II. Search for Related Patent Infringement Litigation

A comprehensive search for patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, Pantech Wireless, LLC, and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in U.S. District Courts did not yield any publicly available results for a direct patent infringement lawsuit between these specific parties concerning this patent. It is possible that the IPR was filed preemptively, in response to a cease-and-desist letter, or as part of a broader dispute that has not yet resulted in a public district court filing, or the district court case is under seal or involves different named entities for a related dispute.

Without a parallel district court litigation identified, the typical events of patent infringement litigation such as filing of complaint, answers, counterclaims, motions to dismiss, claim construction (Markman) hearings, discovery, trial, verdict, and appeals are not applicable to the current posture of IPR2025-00763 itself. The IPR is a separate administrative proceeding focused solely on the patentability of the challenged claims.

Therefore, at present, the key legal developments are limited to the filing and pending institution decision of the IPR. Should a related district court litigation emerge or be identified, its developments would then be chronicled separately and linked to the IPR's progress.The case in question, IPR2025-00763, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838. As an IPR, it is an administrative proceeding, not a district court patent infringement litigation. However, IPRs are frequently filed in response to or in parallel with district court litigation.

I. Key Legal Developments of IPR2025-00763

• IPR Petition Filed (2025-05-14): OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00763) against Pantech Wireless, LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838.
• Trial Instituted (around 2025-12-12): Although the prompt indicated a decision on institution was pending, publicly available information shows that the PTAB instituted a trial in this IPR. The institution date for IPR2025-00763 was listed as December 12, 2025.

II. Parallel Patent Infringement Litigation Developments

A search reveals that U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838 is one of several patents asserted by Pantech Wireless, LLC and Pantech Corporation against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in ongoing patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Case 1: Pantech Corp. et al. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:22-cv-00069-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

• Complaint Filed (2022-06-03): Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC sued OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. This lawsuit involved several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,548,839, 10,869,247, 11,012,954, and 9,063,654.
• Jury Verdict (prior to 2024-04-01): A jury found that OnePlus willfully infringed five of Pantech's patents related to wireless communication and user interface technologies. The jury also found the patents to be valid and awarded Pantech substantial damages.
  • Specifically, the jury ordered OnePlus to pay $7.41 million for infringing three standard-essential patents and an additional $2.85 million for infringing two other patents.
• Post-Trial Motions and Damages Retrial (2024): On post-trial motions, Judge Schroeder ordered a damages retrial, discarding the original $10.4 million award.
• Second Jury Verdict & Judgment (2025-01-23): A second jury verdict, consistent with the first jury's findings of infringement, led to a court award of $1 million in damages to Pantech. Final judgment was entered on January 23, 2025, finding OnePlus to willfully infringe asserted claims of the '247, '839, '954, and '654 patents.
• Appeal (2025-04-09): OnePlus appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal, Case No. 2025-1629, was filed on April 9, 2025, and is currently pending.

Case 2: Pantech Corp. et al. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:24-cv-00038-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex.)

• Complaint Filed (2024-03-14): Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC filed a second lawsuit against OnePlus in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838 (the patent at issue in IPR2025-00763), along with claims for breach of FRAND and unjust enrichment.
• Motion to Dismiss Denied (2025-09-26): OnePlus filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, and this recommendation was adopted by the court on September 26, 2025, allowing Pantech's claims for direct and willful infringement, breach of FRAND, and unjust enrichment to proceed.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Stage (as of 2025-08-07): As of August 7, 2025, this second case had entered the claim construction phase, with parties disputing the scope of discovery related to past license agreements.

Effect of IPR2025-00763 on Litigation

The institution of IPR2025-00763 against U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838 means that the patent's validity is being reviewed by the PTAB. In district court litigation, a defendant often seeks to stay the litigation pending the outcome of a related IPR. The outcome of the IPR (e.g., cancellation of claims) could directly impact the infringement claims in the district court, potentially leading to a stay of the district court proceedings or affecting the scope of the claims asserted. Since the trial in IPR2025-00763 was instituted, OnePlus would likely have sought a stay in the district court proceedings regarding Patent No. 11,212,838, although no public record of a granted stay in relation to this specific patent or IPR was found in the provided search results.

It's important to note that OnePlus has also been involved in numerous other IPRs against Pantech patents, with various outcomes including discretionary denials and instituted trials. This indicates a broader patent dispute between the parties.The case presented, IPR2025-00763, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. However, this IPR is part of a larger, ongoing patent dispute between OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (OnePlus) and Pantech Wireless, LLC (Pantech), which includes active patent infringement lawsuits in U.S. District Courts.

I. Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00763) Developments

• IPR Petition Filed (2025-05-14): OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00763) against Pantech Wireless, LLC, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838.
• Trial Instituted (2025-12-12): The PTAB instituted a trial in IPR2025-00763 on December 12, 2025, indicating that OnePlus's challenge to the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838 was deemed sufficient to proceed to a full review.

II. Parallel Patent Infringement Litigation Developments

U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838 is one of several patents asserted by Pantech against OnePlus in district court litigation. The IPR was likely filed as a defensive measure in response to these infringement allegations.

Case 1: Pantech Corp. et al. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:22-cv-00069-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

This was an earlier patent infringement lawsuit involving other Pantech patents.

• Complaint Filed (2022-06-03): Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This case asserted infringement of patents including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,548,839, 10,869,247, 11,012,954, and 9,063,654.
• Jury Verdict (prior to 2024-04-01): A jury found that OnePlus willfully infringed five of Pantech's patents related to wireless communication and user interface technologies. The jury also affirmed the validity of the patents and awarded Pantech damages. Specifically, the jury awarded Pantech $7.41 million for infringement of three standard-essential patents and an additional $2.85 million for infringement of two other patents.
• Post-Trial Motions and Damages Retrial (2024): Following post-trial motions, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III ordered a retrial solely on the issue of damages, vacating the initial $10.4 million damages award.
• Second Jury Verdict & Final Judgment (2025-01-23): A second jury reached a verdict, leading to a court award of $1 million in damages to Pantech. Final judgment was entered on January 23, 2025, confirming that OnePlus willfully infringed the asserted claims of the '247, '839, '954, and '654 patents.
• Appeal to Federal Circuit (2025-04-09): OnePlus appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal, designated Case No. 2025-1629, was filed on April 9, 2025, and remains pending.

Case 2: Pantech Corp. et al. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:24-cv-00038-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex.)

This case specifically includes U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, which is the subject of IPR2025-00763.

• Complaint Filed (2024-03-14): Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against OnePlus in the Eastern District of Texas. This complaint asserted infringement of eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, and also included claims for breach of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) obligations and unjust enrichment.
• Motion to Dismiss Denied (2025-09-26): OnePlus filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint. A Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, and this recommendation was subsequently adopted by the district court on September 26, 2025. This ruling allowed Pantech's claims for direct and willful infringement, breach of FRAND, and unjust enrichment to proceed.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Stage (as of 2025-08-07): As of August 7, 2025, the case was in the claim construction phase, with the parties engaged in disputes over the scope of discovery concerning past license agreements.

III. Effect of IPR2025-00763 on Litigation

The institution of IPR2025-00763 against U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838 means that the PTAB is reviewing the patentability of the challenged claims. In parallel district court litigation (Case No. 5:24-cv-00038), the finding of invalidity of claims in the IPR could impact the infringement claims. Parties frequently seek a stay of district court proceedings pending the outcome of a related IPR, especially after institution, to conserve resources and avoid inconsistent judgments. While the IPR has been instituted, specific information regarding a motion to stay the district court case directly related to this IPR and patent was not found in the provided search results. The active IPR, however, adds a significant dimension to the ongoing patent dispute, potentially influencing the strategy and eventual outcome of the district court infringement claims related to U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. is represented by attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP in IPR2025-00763. The same counsel also represents OnePlus in related IPRs against Pantech Wireless, LLC, such as IPR2025-00762.

The counsel of record for OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. are:

• Babak Tehranchi

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA
  • Note: Mr. Tehranchi is a partner and co-chair of Perkins Coie's Post-Grant Proceedings practice. His practice focuses on patent litigation, inter partes reviews, and other post-grant proceedings before the PTAB and the Federal Circuit. He has represented clients in a wide array of technologies, including wireless communications, software, and medical devices.

• Yang-Hsien (Homer) Hsu

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA
  • Note: Mr. Hsu is a partner focusing on patent litigation, particularly in the electrical engineering and computer science fields, and has experience with IPRs and other post-grant proceedings.

• Julie S. Goldemberg

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (office location likely in connection with previous filings, often Washington D.C. for Federal Circuit matters, but not explicitly stated for this IPR)
  • Note: Ms. Goldemberg is a partner specializing in appellate litigation, with significant experience before the Federal Circuit in patent cases. She has previously represented OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. in other appellate matters.

I'll research counsel for the patent owner / defendant side (Pantech Wireless) in this IPR and the parallel district court case.

Now let me verify the Mayer Brown team's roster and check the parallel district court counsel on both sides.

Let me verify the full Mayer Brown roster, check for any post-institution developments, and identify OnePlus's district-court defense team.

Counsel of Record — Defense/Respondent Side

Threshold framing: who is the "defendant" here

This proceeding is an IPR, so there is no "defendant" in the Rule 12 sense. The role that corresponds to the defense side is the Patent Owner / Respondent: Pantech Wireless, LLC. For completeness (and because the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement suits are the reason this IPR exists), I also cover below the counsel defending OnePlus in the district court, which is the true "defendant" in the infringement litigation.

One preliminary note on the record: the Pantech side's IPR counsel did not appear until late. Petitioner flagged in IPR2025-00637 (Paper 13 at 41) that "In IPR2025-00763, Patent Owner has still failed to file its Mandatory Notice yet—more than two months after service of the petition on May 14, 2025." Pantech's mandatory notices were not filed until August 26, 2025, by which time it had also missed the Director-set August 14, 2025 deadline for discretionary-denial requests — a request for leave to file out of time was denied by the Director on September 18, 2025.

---

I. Pantech Wireless, LLC — Patent Owner/Respondent in IPR2025-00763

Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, filed Aug. 26, 2025, in IPR2025-00763 (available via PTAB PTACTS). All four are Mayer Brown LLP:

Service e-mail of record: jfussell@mayerbrown.com and pantech-oneplus-service@mayerbrown.com.

Same team appears in the co-pending IPRs against the related patent: e.g., the mandatory notices in IPR2025-00746x/related '283 IPR (dated April 14, 2025) list the identical four-attorney Mayer Brown roster, with Fussell as lead — indicating a coordinated PTAB defense across the Pantech portfolio.

One unverified data point: a counsel-service listing surfaced in the IPR2025-00762/00763 withdrawal order shows a Mayer Brown address astreff@mayerbrown.com alongside Bonner's. I could not confirm the identity of that attorney (possibly an Amanda Streff) from any firm page or PTAB filing, so I am not listing her as counsel of record. Treat it as unresolved.

In-house / party contact: Pantech Wireless, LLC's address of record is 7600 Chevy Chase Drive, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752. No individual in-house counsel was identified in the papers.

---

II. Parallel E.D. Tex. litigation — who is on which side

A. Pantech's side (plaintiff in 5:24-cv-00038-RWS-JBB)

Pantech's district-court team is the same Mayer Brown core plus Texarkana local counsel. From the Oct. 16, 2024 jury-trial transcript in 5:22-cv-00069 and the 5:24-cv-00038 docket entries:

• James A. (Tripp) Fussell III — Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C. (lead)
• Tiffany A. Miller — Mayer Brown (trial team; also on the June 3, 2025 IPR-correspondence distribution list)
• Courtney Krawice — Mayer Brown
• Graham (Gray) M. Buccigross — Mayer Brown, Palo Alto
• Local counsel: Geoffrey P. Culbertson and Kelly B. Tidwell, Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP, 2800 Texas Boulevard, Texarkana, TX 75503

(Note: the '247/'839/'954/'654/'052 case 5:22-cv-00069 is now resolved — the parties' cross-appeals 2025-1628 / 2025-1629 were dismissed by agreement per the Federal Circuit's May 28, 2026 nonprecedential order, and Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal was entered.)

B. The district-court defendant — OnePlus's defense counsel

• Covington & Burling LLP — Richard L. Rainey, Peter A. Swanson, Kevin B. Collins, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001 (rrainey@cov.com, pswanson@cov.com, kcollins@cov.com), appear as OnePlus's counsel in the E.D. Tex. filings (see the proposed judgment/post-trial filing at Dkt. 398 in 5:22-cv-00069, available on CourtListener). ⚠️ Caution: this appearance is drawn from a single CourtListener RECAP document; I did not independently pull the 5:24-cv-00038 docket to confirm Covington is the defense firm in that case, and I did not identify OnePlus's E.D. Tex. local counsel. That gap should be filled by a direct PACER pull.
• OnePlus uses multiple firms across the IPR family: In IPR2025-00720 (the '776 patent), the Rule 42.10(c) correspondence and the Sotera stipulation identify Christopher J. Gass, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. as OnePlus counsel, with additional Leydig Voit names (Airan, Mueller, Filbin, Schubert, Sanner) on the distribution. In IPR2025-00763 specifically, petitioner's counsel is Perkins Coie LLP (Tehranchi, Moulder, Kim, Hsu; Han Saem Hong withdrew by Board order on Jan. 28, 2026) — as already covered in the plaintiff-representatives section.

---

III. Standing conflict issue worth noting for the defense team

The Mayer Brown bench is not free of baggage in this technology space. LG Electronics moved to disqualify Mayer Brown from representing Pantech in the related Pantech v. LGE litigation based on Mayer Brown's decade of prior representation of LGE in CCE, Core Wireless, MTT, and other LTE/SEP matters. The E.D. Tex. district court disqualified Mayer Brown as to one patent but permitted continued representation on the others, finding LGE's informed consent and (for some matters) no substantial relationship. LGE petitioned the Federal Circuit for mandamus, and the same disqualification argument was teed up before the PTAB in the LG IPRs (see the hearing transcript at PTACTS petition 1554444, with Fussell arguing for Pantech that validity briefing is unaffected by the prior-representation issue). I found no indication that disqualification was raised against Mayer Brown in IPR2025-00763 or in the OnePlus district court case.

---

IV. Status flags — the case metadata in this prompt is stale

• The prompt states "Pending institution decision," but multiple independent aggregators (RPX Empower, Unified Patents portal, ipverse, ai-lab.exparte, the PTAB docket mirror) all record an Institution Decision: Grant dated December 12, 2025, with a Scheduling Order entered and Patent Owner objections to evidence filed December 23, 2025. Panel: APJs Jameson Lee, Christopher L. Ogden, Scott B. Howard (Tech Center 2400, Art Unit 2464). This is consistent with the institution date already noted in the earlier-generated sections.
• One aggregator (ai-lab.exparte.com) lists the current status as "Terminated—Settled" with no FWD. That is consistent with, but not directly confirmed by, the broader settlement: a Korean trade report (ipdaily.co.kr, Aug. 7, 2026) states Pantech/IdeaHub settled with Lenovo, TCL, HMD, OnePlus, and Tinno; the ITC's 337-TA-1456 investigation was terminated in its entirety (Commission vote July 30, 2026), and all parallel E.D. Tex. infringement suits were withdrawn. I could not locate the specific PTAB paper terminating IPR2025-00763, so treat the "settled" status as aggregator-reported and unverified.
• Internal inconsistency to note: the earlier-generated section dated its analysis "as of today's date (2026-05-16)," which conflicts with the prompt's stated date of 2026-10-01. I have used 2026-10-01.

---

V. Explicit non-findings (so nothing is fabricated)

• No sealed filings were identified that would hide counsel names; Pantech's and OnePlus's PTAB counsel are both public via mandatory notices.
• I could not verify the identity behind the astreff@mayerbrown.com service address.
• I could not verify OnePlus's E.D. Tex. local counsel in 5:24-cv-00038, nor confirm that Covington & Burling (rather than another firm) remains lead defense counsel in that later case rather than only in 5:22-cv-00069.
• No in-house counsel names were disclosed in any filing reviewed.