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

IPR2024-01206

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 The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01206
Filing Date
22 July 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00494

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.

patentIPR2024-01404

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC

Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Harbor Island Dynamic’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision. The brief asserts the Board properly weighed evidence, did not abuse discretion, and that claim construction was unnecessary. The Director is urged to deny the review request.

patentIPR2025-00230

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

RØDE Microphones challenges Zaxcom’s 7,711,443 patent, arguing that prior IPR invalidations render the claim unpatentable and that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors. The petition seeks denial of the patent owner’s request for Director review.

patentIPR2025-00349

Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.

patentIPR2025-01189

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01189, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Hannibal IP's patent, though the proceeding is currently stayed.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call