Context: Last week, Pantech, formerly one of South Korea’s three largest mobile handset makers, was granted Japan’s first-ever injunction in a FRAND-related case by the Tokyo District Court (June 30, 2025 ip fray article). The decision was issued in a 4G LTE standard-essential patent (SEP) case against Google, and, as noted by Toshifumi Futamata, Chairman, Japan SEP Study Group, may mark the beginning of a new phase in Japan’s SEP enforcement landscape. In other significant news for the SEP community yesterday, a Chinese court in Fuzhou (Fujian Province) granted VoiceAge EVS two SEP injunctions against HMD Global Oy (July 3, 2025 ip fray article).
What’s new: Pantech has now filed a complaint in the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and sued five different implementers in the Eastern District of Texas over the infringement of four 4G SEPs. HMD is among the defendants, and is joined by China’s TCL, OnePlus (an Oppo affiliate), Tinno (which rarely gets sued – although it was indirectly sued by Philips: November 12, 2024 ip fray article), and Lenovo.
Direct impact and wider ramifications: Most notably, the patentee alleges in its complaint against OnePlus that it already sued the company in the Eastern District of Texas in June 2022 over similar patents, which resulted in jury findings of infringement, no invalidity, willfulness, and damages. OnePlus dropped all of its patent invalidity defenses, but despite all of these verdicts, the company has “refused to accept a license on FRAND terms or provide a reasonable counteroffer”, it claimed. It will be interesting to see where its suit against OnePlus goes this time, given its parallel disputes against HMD, TCL, Lenovo, and Tinno.
While Pantech was previously one of South Korea’s three largest mobile handset makers (trailing behind Samsung and LG), it exited the industry in 2017, and, in 2020, transferred over 1,400 patents to IdeaHub, now the country’s largest private non-practicing entity.
One of the defendants, Tinno, makes devices under the “Boost Mobile” brand – a reseller for AT&T and other network operators – as well as AT&T-branded phones.
The ITC complaint identifies several mobile phones that specifically infringe the asserted patents, including those under OnePlus, Lenovo, Motorola, TCL, WIKO, HMD, and Nokia brand names, and certain U.S. cellular network providers’ brand names.
Pantech is seeking an import ban for those products as part of that ITC complaint.
The patents-in-suit include:
- U.S. Patent No. 9,548,839 (“Method for mapping physical hybrid automatic repeat request indicator channel”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,659,503 (“Apparatus and method for establishing uplink synchronization in a wireless communication system”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,051,344 (“Method for transmitting and receiving random access request and transmitting and receiving random access response”)
- U.S. Patent No. 12,267,876 (“Method for transmitting and receiving random access request and transmitting and receiving random access response”)
In its complaints, Pantech notes the importance of cellular communication network technology being standardized around the globe, as well as the significant role independent standard-setting organizations, like the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), play in that. It highlights the definition ETSI gives for “essential”:
“ESSENTIAL” as applied to IPR means that it is not possible on technical (but not commercial) grounds, taking into account normal technical practice and the state of the art generally available at the time of standardization, to make, sell, lease, otherwise dispose of, repair, use or operate EQUIPMENT or METHODS which comply with a STANDARD without infringing that IPR. For the avoidance of doubt, in exceptional cases where a STANDARD can only be implemented by technical solutions, all of which are infringements of IPRs, all such IPRs shall be considered ESSENTIAL.
The company also alleges that it approached each of the defendants about licenses for the SEPs on repeated occasions, but was met with “constant delay, ignored communications, and prolonged periods for responses”.
This is a brief timeline for each of its communications with the defendants:
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Counsel
Pantech is being represented by Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP’s Geoffrey Culbertson and Kelly Tidwell, as well as a team at Mayer Brown: James A. Fussell, III, Jamie B. Beaber, Tiffany A. Miller, Clark S. Bakewell, Courtney Krawice, and Graham (Gray) M. Buccigross.