Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In a rehearing denial order dated October 15, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviewed petitions filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Google LLC seeking rehearing of the Director Review that vacated the institution of Inter Partes Review for patent 11,122,418 B2. After consideration, the Board ordered that the rehearing requests be denied, maintaining the status of the prior decision. No substantive arguments or new evidence were presented, and the petition was dismissed without further action.
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
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and patent owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality provisions.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.
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.