Short Summary
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00810 concerning EyesMatch’s eye‑recognition patent.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00810, Google LLC petitioned for Director Review of the USPTO’s Final Written Decision that upheld the validity of EyesMatch Ltd.’s eye‑recognition patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,982,110). After considering the petition and the patent owner’s authorized response, the Director concluded that the request did not meet the statutory standards for discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and issued an order denying the review. The denial leaves the underlying IPR decision unchanged.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. vs EyesMatch Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Google LLCvsBrodTi Inc.
Google filed a reply in IPR2025‑00472 challenging BrodTi’s online‑advertising patent. The petitioner attacks the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious under §103.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al.vsGodo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Court decision.
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.