Short Summary
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Cerence that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024‑01464 and IPR2024‑01465, outlining a five‑page, five‑business‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Detailed Summary
The PTAB Director sent a notice to counsel for Google and Cerence indicating that Director Review requests have been received for two inter partes review proceedings, IPR2024‑01464 and IPR2024‑01465. The Patent Owner is authorized to file a response limited to the issues raised, not exceeding five pages, and must submit it within five business days via the P‑TACTS system. The Director emphasized that no new evidence or additional briefings are permitted, and the decision on whether to grant the Director Review will be communicated later.
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 Cerence Operating Company et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al.vsLiTL LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in proving unpatentability. The claims related to graphical user interfaces (GUI) were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al.vsOuraring Inc. et al.
Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 6,894,639, arguing they are obvious over earlier image‑processing patents (Barnard, Knecht, Lawrence). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based coupon patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with only two claims surviving.
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.