Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v. K. Mizra LLC

IPR2024-01240

Silicon Motion Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against K. Mizra LLC's patent, arguing that the technology for high-speed digital communication channel calibration was obvious over various prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01240
Judge(s)
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, AARON W. MOORE
Decision Date
13 August 2024

Detailed Summary

Silicon Motion Inc. (Petitioner) successfully petitioned to institute an Inter Partes Review against K. Mizra LLC's patent (9,160,466 B2), asserting that the claims related to high-speed digital communication channel calibration were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board reviewed multiple grounds of obviousness, including combinations involving Meaney, Greeff, Nguyen, and Allee. The Board ultimately determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted challenges, leading to the institution decision.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Silicon Motion Inc. et al. vs K. Mizra LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00856

Google LLC et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.

Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

patentIPR2025-00582

Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks limited access and notification of any disclosure attempts.

patentIPR2025-00253

Microsoft Corporation et al.vsX1 Discovery, Inc.

Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against X1 Discovery's patent on Information Retrieval/Search Indexing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 103, specifically regarding the combination of prior art references (Wilcox, Londergan, Raskin, Wu).

patentIPR2025-00341

Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC

Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.

patentIPR2025-01181

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over the Eagle and Mgrdechian references. The petition argues the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests institution of the IPR.

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