Short Summary
Google and Pointwise Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding at this early stage.
Detailed Summary
In a joint motion filed on August 1, 2025, Google LLC and Pointwise Ventures LLC request the Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminate Inter Partes Review IPR2025-01102 covering U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812. The parties state that they have settled the underlying patent dispute, including related district‑court litigation (case No. 6:24‑cv‑00293‑RP), and that no further litigation is anticipated. Citing good cause, they argue that termination at this early stage—where only the petition has been filed—promotes judicial economy and serves their mutual interests. A copy of the settlement agreement will be filed as Exhibit 1016.
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 POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nearmap US, Inc.vsPictometry International Corp. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap US, Inc.'s IPR petition against Pictometry International Corp., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board also noted that the Petition lacked particularity in mapping prior art disclosures to claim limitations.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed a PGR seeking to invalidate claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s 12,193,790 patent, arguing obviousness over Lisogurski and Carlson and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
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.