Short Summary
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging Stellar’s U.S. Patent 10,965,910 covering loop‑recording surveillance devices. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑AIA references and requests cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter‑partes review, Motorola Solutions, Inc. challenges Stellar, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 10,965,910, which claims a surveillance apparatus that continuously records video in a circular buffer, write‑protects segments surrounding an event, and transmits protected data wirelessly. Motorola contends that all 20 claims are obvious in view of earlier video recording technologies disclosed in Yerazunis, Ely, Lewellen, and Fiore, arguing that loop recording and event‑based write protection were well‑known before the patent’s priority date. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑20, and references related district‑court litigation (Stellar v. Motorola, E.D. Texas).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. vs Stellar, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AT&T Services Inc. et al.vsRightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2021 patent on automatic number identification, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Har and Miller.
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a media data converter and a single data capture device in the prior art, and therefore should be denied. The petition targets claims 6‑17 of U.S. Patent 10,237,067 covering context‑aware image tagging.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LtdvsMarlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
GetTattle, Inc.vsAfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against AfterWords, Inc.'s patent (10430811) based on anticipation grounds (§ 102). The Board found sufficient support in prior art references Douglas and Ganesh for all challenged claims, leading to the institution of the case.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all four claims of Patent No. 11376493 against Mullen Industries LLC, based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board clarified key claim terms, specifically defining 'physical playfield' broadly to encompass both bounded and unbounded spaces.
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.