Executive Summary
The USPTO Director denied Murata's request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00383, leaving the Georgia Tech patent intact.
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
Treasure Garden, Inc.vsATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and public health. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Hulu LLC et al.vs--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑00787 and to keep the settlement agreement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory provisions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.
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.