Google LLC et al. v. Cerence Operating Company et al.

IPR2024-01464

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01464
Judge(s)
Michelle N. Wormmeester, Brian P. Murphy, Lisa A. Murray
Decision Date
16 October 2024

Detailed Summary

In this Institution Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied the petition filed by Google LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. challenging claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,461 B2. The denial was based on a discretionary analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), specifically applying the Fintiv factors. The Board found that because the validity issues were already being litigated in a parallel District Court Litigation with trial set months before the PTAB's deadline, the concerns of inefficiency and duplication outweighed the merits of the challenges.

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 Cerence Operating Company et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentPGR2025-00064

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims of the ’299 wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.

patentIPR2024-00341

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC

Headwater Research LLC seeks Director review of an IPR decision that found all claims of its 2013 MMS messaging patent unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board improperly relied on expert testimony because the cited prior art (TS-23.140) does not disclose the required agent communication bus. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision and terminate the IPR.

patentIPR2025-01260

Apple Inc.vsAvant Location Technologies LLC

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’922 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art location‑service references.

patentIPR2025-00413

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

patentIPR2025-00774

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent covering audio‑stream segment selection and delivery, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple CDN‑related references.

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