Google LLC et al. v. Withrow Networks Inc.

IPR2025-00775

Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00775
Filing Date
24 March 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01351

Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect, LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-01351 before institution, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet made an institution decision, and the parties seek confidentiality for the agreement.

patentIPR2025-01368

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of SoundClear’s 9,223,487 patent covering pinch‑to‑select gestures, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-00463

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.

patentIPR2024-00433

Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC

Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR challenging the validity of Entropic's wideband receiver system patent (9210362). The petitioner argues that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references like Petrovic and Eidson.

patentIPR2024-00506

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsPortsmouth Network Corporation

Cisco Systems challenges Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent (8014394) in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining various prior art references renders nearly all challenged claims unpatentable.

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