Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Pantech v. Lenovo | Patent Lawsuit 5:25-cv-00093

Pantech Co.,Ltd. v. Lenovo, Inc.

5:25-cv-00093 E.D. Tex. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 3 Jul 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 8 Jun 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
5:25-cv-00093
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
3 Jul 2025 – 8 Jun 2026
Duration
340 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
Lenovo Tab K11 LTE · Lenovo ThinkPad P16s Gen 3 Intel (16”) Mobile Workstation · Lenovo ThinkPad P16v Gen 2 Intel (16”) Mobile Workstation · Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold Intel (16”) · Lenovo mobile phones (e.g., Motorola series) and certain other LTE, LTEA, and 5G-capable devices · Motorola razr 50 · moto g 5G –2024 · moto g power 5G – 2024, moto g play – 2024 · moto g power – 2025 · moto g stylus 2025 · moto g stylus 5G – 2024 · moto g – 2025 · motorola edge – 2024 · motorola edge+ – 2023 · motorola razr 2023 · motorola razr 2024 · motorola razr 2025, motorola razr+ · motorola razr ultra 2025 · motorola razr+ 2023
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 5:25-cv-00093, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US11659503B2 Active App. US17/322832

Apparatus and method for establishing uplink synchronization in a wireless communication system

Uplink synchronization establishment in a base station which operates a plurality of component carriers according to one embodiment of the present description, is performed in that the base station is connected to a user equipment, sets component carrier aggregation information, generates an uplink timing groups in the set component carrier aggregation, and transmits information on the thus-generated uplink timing groups to the user equipment.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
23 May 2023
Earliest priority
10 Feb 2010
Est. expiry
10 Feb 2031
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W88/08H04W56/00H04W76/27H04L5/00H04W74/00H04W92/10H04B1/7087
Examiner
TRUONG, LAN-HUONG
US11659503B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US11659503B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US12267876B2 Active App. US18/371735

Method for transmitting and receiving random access request and transmitting and receiving random access response

A base station transmits a random access response in response to a random access request (random access preamble) of a user equipment. The random access response includes information about a time when the random access request is transmitted and sequence number information of the random access request (random access preamble). The user equipment checks whether the received random access response is the response of the random access request transmitted by the user equipment, using the information about the time when the random access request is transmitted and the sequence number information included in the received random access response.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
1 Apr 2025
Earliest priority
22 May 2008
Est. expiry
31 Dec 2028
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W56/00H04L1/1867H04W72/0446H04W72/21H04W74/00H04W74/08H04W74/0833H04W72/12
Examiner
CHAN, SAI MING
US12267876B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US12267876B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“It is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Case 5:25-cv-00093 · E.D. Tex. · closed 8 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 5:25-cv-00093?

5:25-cv-00093 is a patent infringement action brought by Pantech Co.,Ltd. against Lenovo, Inc., filed on 3 Jul 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 8 June 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 5:25-cv-00093?

US11659503B2 (“Apparatus and method for establishing uplink synchronization in a wireless communication system”), assigned to PANTECH CORPORATION, currently active; US12267876B2 (“Method for transmitting and receiving random access request and transmitting and receiving random access response”), assigned to PANTECH CORPORATION, currently active; US9548839B2 (“Method for mapping physical hybrid automatic repeat request indicator channel”), assigned to PANTECH CORPORATION; US11051344B2 (“Method for transmitting and receiving random access request and transmitting and receiving random access response”), assigned to PANTECH CORPORATION. The record also lists Lenovo Tab K11 LTE, Lenovo ThinkPad P16s Gen 3 Intel (16”) Mobile Workstation, Lenovo ThinkPad P16v Gen 2 Intel (16”) Mobile Workstation, Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold Intel (16”), Lenovo mobile phones (e.g., Motorola series) and certain other LTE, LTEA, and 5G-capable devices, Motorola razr 50, moto g 5G –2024, moto g power 5G – 2024, moto g play – 2024, moto g power – 2025, moto g stylus 2025, moto g stylus 5G – 2024, moto g – 2025, motorola edge – 2024, motorola edge+ – 2023, motorola razr 2023, motorola razr 2024, motorola razr 2025, motorola razr+, motorola razr ultra 2025 and motorola razr+ 2023.

How was case 5:25-cv-00093 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “It is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 5:25-cv-00093 take?

340 calendar days, from filing on 3 Jul 2025 to closure on 8 June 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:25-cv-00093?

Geoffrey Patton Culbertson and Kelly B. Tidwell are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Pantech. Melissa Richards Smith appears for defendant Lenovo.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 5:25-cv-00093 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:25-cv-00093 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.