Executive 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.
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
Apple Inc.vsLS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al.vsGodo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01447. The company contends the request lacks any showing of error or abuse of discretion and should be denied.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 and 18 unpatentable over the prior art reference Toyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued a Final Written Decision after addressing several key claim construction disputes regarding isolation regions, dielectric structures, and local contacts.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 16 claims of SitNet’s ’345 patent, arguing they are obvious over Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Tableau Software, LLC et al.vsiCharts LLC
iCharts LLC filed an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for director review of the institution decision. The response emphasizes that the dissent does not merit reversal and that Tableau failed the reasonable‑likelihood test under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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.