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

July 22, 2026

The Court of Federal Claims recently denied the United States’ motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit related to production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the plaintiff filed its claim there before it filed a parallel suit in a district court and because it adequately pleaded the government’s involvement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 13, 2026

In a precedential and sua sponte Director Review decision, USPTO Director Squires recently vacated three related institution decisions nearly six months after institution where a district court later found the challenged claims invalid. Because the fourteen-day deadline to request Director Review of the institution decisions had passed, the Director used this opportunity to formally extend the deadline in two ways. First, he extended the fourteen-day deadline under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(c)(1) to thirty days, which “puts requests for Director Review of decisions to institute trial on equal footing to requests for Director Review of final decisions or decisions not to institute trial.” Second, he outlined certain “exceptional circumstances” that warrant a further extension of the deadline to account for changes in the case that “surface after the deadline.” In the case at hand, the Director found the district court’s invalidity finding to be such an “exceptional circumstance” and ultimately initiated review and vacated the institution decisions on that basis.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

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.