Google LLC et al. v. Mullen Industries LLC

IPR2025-00366

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00366
Judge(s)
John A. Squires
Decision Date
30 December 2024

Detailed Summary

This Director Review Decision addresses several International Patent Litigation (IPR) proceedings, including IPR2025-00366 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,234,117 B2. The Office reviewed requests for review of prior institution decisions filed by the petitioner group (Google LLC et al.) and their authorized responses. After reviewing all submissions, the Director denied all requests for Director Review across the listed proceedings.

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

patentIPR2024-00356

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.vsSemiconductor Design Technologies, LLC

Cadence and Semiconductor Design Technologies have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering U.S. Patent 7,603,636, an electronic design automation patent.

patentIPR2025-01042

Solventum CorporationvsWound Healing Technologies Corp.

Solventum Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of Wound Healing Technologies' wound‑dressing patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Argenta, Hu, Biggie and Lockwood.

patentIPR2025-01041

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.

patentIPR2025-01073

Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.vsEvolution Malta Limited

Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.

patentIPR2025-01045

Wise PLC et al.vs--

Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call