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
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLCvsFacet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsBarco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc.vsMidas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 10,405,457, arguing obviousness over Best‑2008 combined with Osada and Best‑2012, and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
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.