US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Multifold’s patent, arguing the patent owner’s antedating evidence is insufficient and its declarants lack credibility.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Motorola Mobility and Google settled with Multifold International over U.S. Patent 9,146,589, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Multifold International seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its dual‑screen smartphone patent, arguing the Board relied on a single dependent claim and ignored substantial antedating evidence. The petition contends the institution is inefficient and better suited for district‑court resolution.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Google and Motorola challenged Multifold’s dual‑screen smartphone patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR on a single dependent claim, prompting Multifold to seek Director Review, arguing the Board ignored extensive antedating evidence and violated efficiency guidelines.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00048

Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00061

Google and Motorola settled their IPR dispute with Multifold over U.S. Patent 9,792,007 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Court decision.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00061

Google and Motorola jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreements with Multifold International confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties seek to have the covenants not to sue treated as business confidential information and excluded from the public patent file.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00048

Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. Settlement agreements were kept confidential per Board order.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

Google filed Director Review requests for two IPRs challenging Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The Board limited the patent owner’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

Google and Samsung have filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR against Cerence’s ‘750 patent. The petition argues the Board acted ultra vires by retroactively applying new guidance and mis‑weighing the Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation. The request seeks reversal and institution of the review.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00039 after reaching a settlement and filing covenants not to sue. The Board noted good cause for termination given the early stage of the proceeding.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential, invoking 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to separate the agreements from the public patent file and limit disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

patent denied · Oct 17, 2024

Multifold International has submitted a Director Review request in IPR2025-00058 against Google. The petitioner may file a concise, five‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

patent denied · Oct 17, 2024

The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs challenging Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent, leaving the institution denials in place.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

Cerence Operating Company opposes Google’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The patent owner emphasizes due‑process compliance and the correct application of Fintiv factors.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00061

Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition to invalidate ten claims of Multifold's UI patent, arguing obviousness over Purcell/Nicholas and Gillespie/Yook prior art. The petition also challenges discretionary denial and seeks institution.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Google and Motorola petition IPR to invalidate Multifold’s 9,158,494 patent covering dual‑screen UI methods, asserting that earlier Seo, Yook and Choi disclosures anticipate or make the claims obvious.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00060

Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Multifold’s 8,842,080 patent covering multi‑display icon handling on handheld devices. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over Japanese patents Ogawa, Yook, and Choi and argues against discretionary denial.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00059

Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition against Multifold's dual‑screen patent, seeking to invalidate twelve claims as obvious over Yook, Bauer and Lee references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00038

Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's 8,836,842 patent covering dual‑screen handheld devices, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Chin and Whitehorn.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's dual‑screen handheld patent, arguing that the Aono prior‑art reference makes all challenged claims obvious. They request institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11‑14, and 16.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00048

Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Woodbury Wireless’s ’930 MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Lastinger and Gore references.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.