PTAB

IPR2025-00317

Cellco Partnership v. Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Transmitting and Receiving Downlink Signal in Next Generation Wireless Network
  • Brief Description: The ’942 patent discloses techniques for managing network resources by notifying a user equipment (UE) that certain radio resources have been preempted for other uses (e.g., low-latency traffic) and configuring the UE to monitor for this preemption notification information.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kuchibhotla - Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are obvious over Kuchibhotla in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kuchibhotla (Application # 2017/0223687).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kuchibhotla discloses all key features of the challenged claims. Kuchibhotla teaches a system for managing low-latency and regular-latency transmissions in the same subframe. It discloses using a "marker" (equivalent to the claimed "DL preemption indication information") to inform a UE about resources that have been punctured or preempted for low-latency traffic. To facilitate this, Kuchibhotla describes configuring the UE via a "dedicated mode RRC" message, which a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand as UE-specific signaling. This configuration message assigns a special Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI), specifically a "marker-RNTI," for the UE to use in blindly decoding a downlink control channel (PDCCH) to find the marker. Kuchibhotla further discloses that this marker can be sent in a subframe following the preemption event and can be transmitted via a "broadcast transmission common to multiple devices," which Petitioner contended a POSITA would understand as a multicast signal.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference plus the knowledge of a POSITA. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have understood that terms used in Kuchibhotla, such as "dedicated mode RRC" and "broadcast transmission common to multiple devices," were synonymous with the claimed "UE-specific RRC signaling" and "multicast signal," respectively, based on the common knowledge and standards in the art at the time.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted success was expected because applying common industry terminology and understanding to the teachings of Kuchibhotla was a straightforward interpretation of the reference.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kuchibhotla and Chen - Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are obvious over Kuchibhotla in view of Chen and the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kuchibhotla (Application # 2017/0223687), Chen (Application # 2016/0234857).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the disclosures of Kuchibhotla by adding Chen to explicitly teach sending preemption information via a multicast signal. Kuchibhotla provided the core system of configuring a UE with a special RNTI via UE-specific RRC signaling to monitor for a preemption "marker." Chen addresses the same technical problem of resource puncturing and explicitly discloses using an "indicator" that can be sent as "multicast-type content" on the PDCCH to inform UEs about low-latency transmissions in a prior slot. Petitioner argued that combining Chen’s explicit teaching of a multicast indicator with Kuchibhotla's framework renders the limitation of receiving preemption information "through a multicast signal" obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Chen's teachings with Kuchibhotla's system because both references are in the same field and address the identical problem of managing co-existing low-latency and regular-latency traffic. Petitioner argued that using a multicast signal, as taught by Chen, to deliver preemption information to a group of affected UEs was a known, efficient technique to improve system performance and reliability. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement this efficient multicast method within the system described by Kuchibhotla.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be predictable, as combining a known multicast signaling technique (from Chen) with a compatible wireless communication framework (from Kuchibhotla) involves applying established principles to achieve a predictable improvement in efficiency.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) (Same or Substantially the Same Art): Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that the prior art references relied upon in the petition (Kuchibhotla and Chen) were not considered by the Patent Office during the original prosecution of the ’942 patent.
  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weigh against discretionary denial. Key arguments included: the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with no substantive rulings issued; jurisdictional disputes in the district court could significantly delay the trial date, which is already scheduled far in the future (September 2025); and the merits of the petition are strong, presenting a compelling case for unpatentability.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 of Patent 11,405,942 as unpatentable.