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
TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of Kudo-325 and Kudo-066. The petitioner successfully argued that the prior art combination teaches or suggests the necessary elements for destination prediction and power management in vehicles. This final decision affirms the obviousness rejection against iQar Inc.'s patent.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al.vsLongitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude jointly request the PTAB keep their settlement confidential and move to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240.
Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks a PTAB Director Review of SoundClear’s echo‑cancellation patent; the Patent Owner has a five‑day window to respond without new evidence.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
The PTAB found Samsung’s challenge successful for 11 of the 15 claims of Maxell’s ’815 patent, deeming them obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while four claims remained upheld.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the PTAB's institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, including the 9,954,922 patent. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
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.