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
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al.vsSK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.
Google LLCvsValtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
Paragon 28, Inc.vsTREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a patent infringement lawsuit tied to its Lapiplasty bunion‑correction system. The settlement concludes the related PGR proceeding (PGR2026‑00017).
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power’s generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings as to those parties. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
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.