Short Summary
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patents. The denial leaves the original institution rulings intact.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review order dated January 12, 2026, the USPTO Director denied Google LLC’s petitions to overturn the institution decisions in four separate Inter Partes Review proceedings (IPR2025-00806, IPR2025-00826, IPR2025-00969, and IPR2025-01010) involving patents owned by Sandpiper CDN, LLC. After reviewing the petitions and the parties’ responses, the Director found no sufficient grounds to reverse the institution rulings and ordered that the requests for Director Review be denied, thereby preserving the status of the instituted IPRs.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs Sandpiper CDN, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al.vsTangent Technologies LLC et al.
A petition challenges a polymer board patent by asserting that the claimed simulated wood-grained structure is obvious. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references, including StaMixCo and Zumbrunnen, to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFRACTUS, S.A.
The USPTO denied Geotab’s request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Fractus’s telematics patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Hisense USA Corporation et al.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of VideoLabs’ ’238 patent after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek to close the proceeding to conserve resources.
Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation
Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.
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.