US PTAB IP Litigation

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate institution of its IPRs covering body‑camera patents, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process. It offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Stellar, LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions' wireless patents, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution decision against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that had vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01208. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola offered no specific error or proper new evidence.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01208 against Stellar’s request for Director Review, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and Sotera stipulation. The Board’s decision to institute remains unchallenged.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPRs covering body‑camera patents. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due‑process, and it is willing to expand its stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola seeks rehearing to overturn the Director’s denial of institution for its body‑camera patents, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due process. The company offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy the Board’s discretionary analysis.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola’s request for rehearing of a PTAB Director Review Decision was denied. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola had already had a chance to argue under the prior guidance.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Stellar, LLC requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola’s patents, alleging misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and improper discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions’ patents, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and the "compelling merits" standard.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01205. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was correctly applied and that Motorola failed to show specific errors. The denial leaves the Director Review decision standing.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Stellar, LLC's surveillance apparatus patent (9912914) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely combinations of existing prior art references related to video recording and data management.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar's U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed features of the video surveillance apparatus are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This challenge targets multiple claims related to data recording, wireless interfaces, and file indexing.

DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2024-01197

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH initiated an IPR challenge against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP concerning a patent covering oral/topical drug delivery systems. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art references including Dohil and Grother.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB instituted the IPR for 9912914, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on all challenged obviousness grounds (103). The petitioner argued that combinations of prior art references—including Yerazunis, Fiore, Ely, and Lewellen—would render claims 1-23 obvious to a POSITA.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola vs. Stellar IPR, ultimately denying institution based on Fintiv factors favoring denial due to substantial parallel proceeding investment.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining prior art references would teach the challenged limitations, moving the case toward substantive obviousness analysis.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions vs. Stellar, LLC IPR, ultimately denying institution because substantial investment had already occurred in the parallel district court proceeding.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB instituted the IPR trial on all grounds for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC, finding persuasive arguments that claims are unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Board found specific teachings in Yerazunis and Fiore supported the obviousness of key claims regarding surveillance data recording.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC