Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Collision Communications, Inc.

IPR2025-00285

The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00285
Judge(s)
Neil T. Powell, Charles J. Boudreau, Kevin C. Trock
Decision Date
12 December 2024

Detailed Summary

In this Institution Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied the Petition filed by Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC against Collision Communications, Inc., concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,947,505 B2. The denial was based on the statutory requirement that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing must be demonstrated under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Since the Petitioner's case was substantively identical to one previously denied in Samsung IPR (IPR2024-01249), institution was likewise denied, and the Motion for Joinder was rejected.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. vs Collision Communications, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00169

Kubota North America Corporation et al.vsVermeer Manufacturing Company

Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on foreign patents KR996 and JP705, plus U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami, to argue obviousness. Kubota also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

patentIPR2025-01178

Starbucks Corporation et al.vsPi-Design AG et al.

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.

patentIPR2025-01273

Niantic, Inc.vsImagineAR, Inc. et al.

The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01273 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.

patentIPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over five earlier dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.

patentIPR2025-01369

GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al.vsNine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.

EKO petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Nine Stars’ ’796 patent covering a power‑saving, automatically opening trash bin. The petition relies on obviousness over Chinese references Zheng and Wang, asserting that the three‑state sensor control and sensor placement are well‑known.

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