Short Summary
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review order dated February 13, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied Google LLC’s petition to review the USPTO’s earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-01161, which challenges Advanced Coding Technologies LLC’s patent 7,804,891 B2 covering video encoding technology. After evaluating the petition and the authorized response, the Director concluded that the request did not warrant reversal and ordered the denial of the Director Review. The decision confirms the original institution denial and leaves the patent unchallenged in this proceeding.
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 Advanced Coding Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to terminate the IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreements confidential under statutory provisions. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to support the request.
Under Armour, Inc.vsAthalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Athalonz, LLC's shoe patent (11,064,760 B2). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions to invalidate SitNet’s ’769 patent covering situational networks, arguing all 30 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites multiple earlier patents and publications and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution’s challenge to the ’924 lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The Board found no sufficient evidence of obviousness over the cited prior art, leaving all five claims intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi’s ’756 patent, asserting obviousness, patent‑ineligible subject matter, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on prior art Chincholi (WO 2013/126859) and Clegg (U.S. Patent 9,055,592).
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.