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
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.vsEvolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Evolution Malta’s ’371 roulette‑payout patent, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier gaming patents such as Kido, Yee, and Baron.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.
The IPR concerning Patent 11,119,756 was terminated after Vivint Smart Home, NRG Energy and Malikie Innovations reached a confidential settlement before the trial was instituted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Duration MediavsRich Media Club LLC
The PTAB affirmed all ten claims of the ’329 ad‑viewability patent, finding Duration Media failed to prove obviousness over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins. Claim constructions on “render,” “replacement advertisement,” and the “in‑response‑to” step were adopted.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research LLC filed a notice of partial settlement, confirming a worldwide licensing agreement with Apple and releasing all claims against Apple and related defendants in the district court case against Amazon.
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.