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
Kohler Co.vsDelta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s final decision that upheld the validity of claims 10 and 19 of its illuminated fixture patent. The petition alleges factual errors and ignored expert admissions, seeking reversal of the Board’s findings.
Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Entegris' challenge to Inpria's 11,673,903 patent covering high‑purity organotin compounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLCvsCarbyne, Ltd. et al.
CentralSquare Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Carbyne’s emergency video‑streaming patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over two earlier patents. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under §§102 and 103.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen Group of America successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1's obviousness over Weese. The Board instituted review for all 18 claims and grounds due to procedural deficiencies by the Patent Owner.
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.