Short Summary
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
Detailed Summary
In a decision dated May 23, 2025, the PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that had vacated the Board's institution decisions in four inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2024-01206 concerning Stellar's patent 9,485,471. Motorola argued that the USPTO improperly applied the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo retroactively, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and due process. The Board referenced the March 2025 Memo, which clarified that the rescission only affects cases without a final institution decision, and found that the Director Review was still pending, rendering the rescission inapplicable. Additionally, the Board noted that Motorola failed to identify specific errors in the weighting of the Fintiv factors and that the new evidence cited did not meet the standard for rehearing. Consequently, the rehearing request was denied.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. vs Stellar, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dropbox, Inc.vsMotion Offense LLC
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.
Apple Inc.vsCardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed on the challenged patents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Court decision.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's battery patent (8968924). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Ohata and Kavan. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to a full trial phase at the PTAB.
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.