Cellco Partnership v. Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00137
• Patent #: 11,540,272
• Filed: December 24, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., Nokia of America, Corp., Ericsson Inc., and Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): KT Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Device for Allocating Data Channel Resource for Next-Generation Wireless Access Network
• Brief Description: The ’272 patent relates to methods for allocating time-domain data channel resources in wireless networks. The claimed invention uses an allocation table, indexed by a bit string in Downlink Control Information (DCI), to inform a wireless device of the starting symbol and number of symbols for data transmission.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Gao in view of You.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gao (Application # 2020/0187169) and You (Application # 2018/0376497).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gao teaches all key limitations of the independent claims. Gao discloses a base station that allocates time-domain resources at a granular Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbol level for 5G systems. It transmits a set of predefined resource "patterns" to a user device via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, where each pattern specifies the starting position and length of OFDM symbols for a resource region. Gao further discloses using DCI "configuration signaling" to notify the user device of which specific pattern from the plurality of patterns to use. Petitioner contended this set of indexable patterns renders the claimed "allocation table" obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Gao with You because both references address the same problem of granular resource allocation in 5G networks, originate from participants in the same 3GPP working groups, and use overlapping terminology. You explicitly discloses using a specific number of bits (N bits) in a DCI field to index 2^N resource patterns. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Gao's system using You's explicit DCI bit-based indexing scheme to create an efficient and specific implementation for selecting a resource pattern.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as the combination merely applies You's known indexing technique to Gao's analogous system of resource patterns, both of which were conventional approaches being discussed in 3GPP standards development.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious over You in view of Gao.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: You (Application # 2018/0376497) and Gao (Application # 2020/0187169).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that You is a strong primary reference, teaching a base station that transmits RRC signals defining a plurality of "resource patterns" for shortened transmissions (sTTIs). You explicitly discloses that a "resource allocation (RA) field" in the DCI contains N bits that serve as a "pattern index" to select one of 2^N patterns. Petitioner asserted this system of indexed "resource patterns" inherently discloses or renders obvious the claimed "allocation table" where the DCI bit string is a "row index."
  • Motivation to Combine: While You teaches indexed resource patterns and "regions," Gao explicitly clarifies that each pattern includes information on the "length" and "position" (i.e., starting symbol) of the allocated OFDM symbols. A POSITA reading You would look to analogous art like Gao, which was part of the same 3GPP discussions, to find explicit implementations of pattern contents. A POSITA would combine Gao's clear teaching of start/length information with You's patterns to ensure the resource regions were unambiguously defined.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would predictably succeed because it involves using Gao's explicit definition of resource pattern data to flesh out the details of the resource "regions" in You's highly similar system.

Ground 3: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Gao and You in further view of 3GPP Standards.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gao (Application # 2020/0187169), You (Application # 2018/0376497), 3GPP TS 36.213, and 3GPP TS 36.212.

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforces Grounds 1 and 2. Petitioner argued that if the Patent Owner contends that the "patterns" in Gao and You do not constitute an explicit "table," the 3GPP standards resolve any doubt. The 3GPP standards, which predate the patent, explicitly disclose resource allocation using a formal "table" format indexed by a 3-bit DCI field.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the resource allocation "patterns" described in Gao and You would naturally look to established 3GPP standards for well-known and efficient data structures. The standards provide a ready-made, obvious design choice for implementing the pattern-based allocation scheme. Petitioner noted that the table format in the ’272 patent's priority application is nearly identical to the table format in the 3GPP standards, showing it was a known and available implementation.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was assured because this combination simply involves implementing a known concept (Gao/You's patterns) using a standardized, well-documented, and proven data structure (the 3GPP allocation table).

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including Ground 4 (reversing the primary/secondary references of Ground 3) and Ground 5 (adding a 3GPP contribution document, R1-1610129, to teach support for different numerologies as recited in certain dependent claims).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §325 or §314(a) (Fintiv). The Examiner did not consider any of the asserted prior art. Regarding the Fintiv factors, Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation is in its very early stages with significant uncertainty around the trial schedule, minimal investment has occurred, and this IPR presents a unique and overwhelming invalidity case based on prior art never before considered by the USPTO or any court.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’272 patent as unpatentable.