Short Summary
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 The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
Detailed Summary
In an authorized response to Stellar, LLC’s request for Director Review of IPR2024-01206, Motorola Solutions, Inc. contends that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s institution decision was proper and not subject to reversal. The petitioner emphasizes that the USPTO’s rescinded Guidance Memo no longer governs the analysis, and that the Board’s application of the Fintiv factors—particularly the Sotera stipulation, the challenge of all patent claims, and the merits of the petition—aligns with established precedent. Motorola further argues that the Board did not err in its assessment of resource burdens or timing, and that the petition’s filing was not an unfair tactical maneuver.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. vs Stellar, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.vsST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsW&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
Par Health, Inc.vsInfoRLife, S.A.
Par Health petitions the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,370,153 covering ready‑to‑use ketamine infusion formulations. The petition asserts anticipation by a Biomed data sheet and obviousness over Biomed combined with standard pharmaceutical references and commercial infusion bag literature.
Perfect CorporationvsZugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art patents and CyberLink’s YouCam 3 publications.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices. The petition relies on Eagle and Mgrdechian as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.