Google LLC et al. v. Mullen Industries LLC

IPR2025-00365

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00365
Decision Date
30 December 2024
Filing Date
30 December 2024

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.

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