Short Summary
Google and co‑petitioners filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to uphold the institution of IPR2025‑00019 against Mullen Industries’ patent 9,204,283. The brief emphasizes minimal claim overlap, strong petition merits, and the inapplicability of discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Detailed Summary
In an authorized response to the Director’s review request, Google LLC, Samsung Electronics, and Samsung Electronics America argue that the PTAB should not vacate its earlier decision to institute IPR2025‑00019 challenging all 20 claims of Mullen Industries’ U.S. Patent No. 9,204,283. The petitioners contend that Fintiv factors 4 (no overlap) and 6 (strong merits) overwhelmingly favor institution, citing Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and the fact that 95% of the claims will never be litigated elsewhere. They also note that Google, as a non‑defendant, does not create a due‑process concern, and that the Board correctly applied the holistic analysis of all factors, rendering discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) unwarranted.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google LLC et al. vs Mullen Industries LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc.vsSfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00952 and IPR2024-00966, keeping the institution decisions denied. The petitioner's appeal was rejected without substantive reconsideration.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against SoundClear Technologies LLC regarding voice-content control claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over the prior art reference 'Shin.'
AT&T Services, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations. The petition stresses the parallel ITC case and TSMC’s strong institution record. No claim construction is raised at this stage.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
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.