Short Summary
The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing and refused to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent, citing the parallel district court trial and discretionary authority. The decision rests on six Fintiv factors and the weakness of the petition’s merits.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00365, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for the petition filed by Google LLC and Samsung entities against Mullen Industries LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 11,234,117. The Board emphasized that the parallel district court case, scheduled for trial on November 3, 2025, would resolve the same issues months before any PTAB final written decision could be issued, rendering a second proceeding inefficient. Applying the six Fintiv factors—lack of a stay, trial timing, investment, issue overlap, identical parties, and weak petition merits—the Board found no error in denying institution. The petitioners’ arguments about a Sotera stipulation and alleged “settled expectations” were rejected as non‑dispositive. Consequently, the request for rehearing was denied and the IPR was not instituted.
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
Hisense USA CorporationvsPhenix Longhorn LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLCvsCarbyne, Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01179 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This decision allows the case to proceed to trial.
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.