1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Eastern District of Texas Judge Holds that Statements Made to PTAB Constitute Disclaimer

Sep 15, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Rubén H. Muñoz

T-Mobile US, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) filed a lawsuit against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,867,339 (the “’339 Patent”). The ’339 Patent generally relates to error recovery for a tunnel architecture between a radio control network and a gateway general packet radio service node (GGSN). The error recovery involves managing a “packet data protocol (PDP) context,” which is a data structure relating to a user’s cellular data connection.

In response to Huawei’s suit against T-Mobile, Nokia Solutions and Networks LLC (“Nokia”) filed an IPR petition against the ’339 Patent. Nokia alleged that the claims of the ’339 Patent were obvious in light of a combination of prior art references that involved the PDP context. In its response to Nokia’s petition, Huawei repeatedly argued that the combination of prior art references on which Nokia relied did not make the claims of the ’339 Patent obvious.   Specifically, Huawei took the position that the prior art combination did not preserve the PDP context as claimed in the ’339 Patent and instead marked the PDP context as invalid. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR and rejected Huawei’s argument.

In its district court suit, Huawei generally accused T-Mobile’s 3G network of infringing the ’339 Patent by complying with a 3GPP standard. There was no dispute that the relevant 3GPP standard required the GGSN to mark the PDP context as invalid in response to an error. T-Mobile moved for partial summary judgment based on Huawei’s statements in response to Nokia’s IPR petition differentiating the prior art combination that marked the PDP context invalid in response to an error. In a report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne stated that Huawei’s statements to the PTAB constituted a clear disclaimer. The court therefore held that Huawei was precluded from alleging that the ’339 Patent covered a network, such as T-Mobile’s 3G network, in which a GGSN marks the PDP context invalid in response to an error. The court recommended granting T-Mobile’s motion because there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that T-Mobile’s 3G network infringed the claims of the ’339 Patent.

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00052 (E.D. Tex., September 9, 2017, Report and Recommendation) (Payne, R. S.)

Share This Insight

Categories

District CourtInter Partes ReviewPatent InfringementEastern District of Texas
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.