Michelle N. Ankenbrand
30 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
30 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The Director Review denied institution of two IPRs against Headwater Research, finding that discretionary factors—particularly the timing of a parallel proceeding—outweighed the petitioner's merits. Samsung Electronics (as petitioner) and Headwater Research presented opposing arguments on the strength of the petition and the proper weighing of Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of the IPRs against Headwater Research’s patents, finding the parallel proceeding’s trial date too close to the expected final decision.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of Samsung's IPR against Headwater's patent, citing the parallel proceeding's trial date as a decisive discretionary factor.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung, Google and other petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341, leaving the original decision in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted a Director Review of the institution decision in Micron's IPR against Yangtze Memory, staying the proceedings while the Board reconsidered challenges related to foreign sovereign control and RPI disclosure.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Ericsson and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00084, leaving the institution of the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent intact.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
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.
The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review, vacating the Board's decision and favoring Headwater Research LLC over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. based on procedural timing factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in Netlist’s memory‑module patent case, leaving the institution in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld its denial of institution in IPR2025-00018, finding that a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits justified the decision. Patent Owner’s response reinforces the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(d).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision vacated the initial grant of institution based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Empire Technology’s patent was denied. The Board, led by Judge Ankenbrand, found the petition did not meet the required standards.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Headwater Research, vacating a prior institution decision after reviewing the merits and procedural factors.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Collision Communications' patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the institution denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung and Google's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341 concerning patent 8,406,733.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.