Short Summary
The USPTO denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a Director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00609, leaving the institution denial in place.
Detailed Summary
In a Director discretionary decision dated October 31, 2025, the USPTO denied NVIDIA Corporation's petition for rehearing of the earlier decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00609 concerning patent RE48,438. The Board, led by Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart, reviewed the rehearing request and concluded that the original discretionary denial was proper, issuing an order that the rehearing request is denied. No new arguments, prior art, or claim constructions were introduced, and the denial maintains the status quo of the underlying IPR proceedings.
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
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAlmondNet, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsWSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.
TransCore, LPvsHand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SoundClear’s 11,244,675 patent covering voice‑controlled content generation. The petition asserts obviousness over Raitio/Fahlman and Ocampo/Fahlman combinations for claims 1‑7.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie's ’305 patent covering space‑time coding, asserting that claims 1‑3 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over several earlier patents. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.