Executive Summary
The USPTO denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a Director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00609, leaving the institution denial 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 NVIDIA Corporation vs Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully challenged the ’282 battery‑binder patent, with the PTAB finding all 16 claims unpatentable based on obviousness over multiple carbon‑nanotube references.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
Petitioner Tessell, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Nutanix, Inc.’s request to reverse the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-00298. The brief argues no unfair dealing, cites settled expectations for early‑filed patents, and asserts that discretionary denial under §325(d) is improper.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024‑01205, arguing the Patent Owner’s Director Review request is moot and the Board acted correctly under Fintiv factor analysis.
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.