Executive Summary
The PTAB held that Google proved all 21 claims of Valtrus’s ’454 patent are obvious over Colby, Eilert, and Jindal, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.
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 vs Valtrus Innovations Limited et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsVirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against VirtaMove’s virtualization patent was rejected. The Board upheld the Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 316, leaving the patent’s validity untouched.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,667,669 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before the PTAB.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al.vsInfogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. filed an opening petition challenging the validity of Infogation Corp.'s patent (6292743), focusing on obviousness under 103. The challenge targets claims related to route guidance and ITS architecture, citing extensive prior art from government documents and international patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
Hanwha Solutions CorporationvsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
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.