Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-01208, Motorola Solutions responded to Stellar’s request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB correctly applied the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Sotera stipulation in its institution decision. Motorola contended that Stellar’s objections regarding stays, merit analysis, and alleged procedural errors were either moot due to rescinded guidance or unsupported by the record. The response underscores that the Board did not abuse discretion and that the institution of the IPR should stand, leaving the underlying patent claims intact pending further proceedings.
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
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al.vsMasaba, Inc.
Petitioners successfully achieved institution in this IPR challenging Masaba, Inc.'s aggregate transfer apparatus patent (11780689). The petition asserts that the claimed system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on predictable combinations of various prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung successfully secured institution for its IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 12114177. The trial is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition against Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, seeking to invalidate all 38 claims as obvious. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art patents by Perego, Harris, and Amidi covering memory‑module architecture and power‑management techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.
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.