Executive Summary
The USPTO denied Samsung and Google's request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00018, leaving the earlier institution order in place.
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
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review for several IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 8738740. The Patent Owner must respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al.vsIntelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and the patent owner jointly move to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that Aylo Freesites Ltd failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in its prior art search. The Board relied on General Plastic factors, noting substantial similarities between the cited references and suggesting a skilled searcher would have found them earlier.
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.