Short Summary
Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00384, Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. challenges claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914, which covers a multi‑band RF device with embedded passive components on an organic substrate. The petitioner relies on two statutory grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103(a): (1) the combination of Yeh (U.S. Patent 5,995,814) and Dalmia’s dissertation, and (2) the combination of Dalmia and Hashemi’s IEEE article. Both grounds are argued to render the challenged claims unpatentable, and the petition contends there is no basis for a discretionary denial under §§325(d) or 314. The filing seeks institution of the IPR to cancel the claims, aiming to resolve parallel district‑court litigation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. vs Georgia Tech Research Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior institution decisions across several patents.
Embody, Inc. et al.vsLifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet successfully secured institution in this IPR against LifeNet Health's '223 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims related to collagen scaffolds with specific FFT analysis characteristics are unpatentable over prior art references like Huang2 and Lee.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.vsSciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01246. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01310 involving Samsung and Maxell. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
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.