Short Summary
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate BrodTi Inc.’s 11,416,898 patent covering internet‑based project financing via advertising. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑00472, Google LLC challenges BrodTi Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 B2, which claims methods, systems, and apparatus for financing projects through targeted online advertising. The petitioner contends that claims 1‑20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing a combination of prior‑art references—including the Nicholas application, Laidlaw, Mayadas, Error, Yasnovsky, and Manowitz—to demonstrate obviousness. Google also addresses the Board’s discretionary considerations under §§ 314(a) and 325(d), asserting that none support a denial, and therefore requests institution of the IPR.
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 BrodTi Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against AutoConnect’s ’186 patent, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics partnership and AutoConnect’s maintenance‑fee lapses.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 21 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’578 patent covering mobile content‑sharing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
In IPR2026‑00018 the PTAB held that Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent obvious over a combination of Kim, Rajan, Riho and Wyman. The Board adopted the district‑court claim constructions and rejected Netlist’s arguments about non‑DRAM limitations and collision risks.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al.vsColumbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB found 103 of the 105 claims of Simpson Strong‑Tie’s fire‑wall hanger patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Yamaguchi, Bundy, Adams and Gilb ’416 references. Claims 38 and 91 were left intact. The Board adopted petitioner‑proposed claim constructions.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
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.