Short Summary
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
Detailed Summary
In a rehearing order dated August 5, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board considered petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in three inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-01447, IPR2024-01493, and IPR2024-01494). After reviewing the parties' submissions, the Board ordered that all requests for Director Review be denied, leaving the earlier institution decisions intact. The order lists counsel for both Western Digital Technologies, Inc. and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 but provides no substantive discussion of patentability grounds or prior art.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. vs Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.)vsMaxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.vsSkyworks Solutions, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petition for review of its decision not to institute an IPR against Skyworks' patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to review Ningde Amperex’s 10,833,363 battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information, effectively ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
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.