Google LLC v. BrodTi Inc.

IPR2025-00472

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00472
Filing Date
17 January 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01310

Genius Sports Ltd.vsSportsCastr Inc.

Genius Sports opposes SportsCastr’s request for Director Review, contending the Board properly analyzed the webserver limitation and that PANDA’s arguments were waived. The Board’s decision should stand and the request be denied.

patentIPR2024-01133

BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences, LLC

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 13 claims unpatentable by preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Weaver combined with Lee ’053 and Song.

patentIPR2025-01087

Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.

Orca Security Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Wiz, Inc.'s patent covering AI Model Risk Detection. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over the combination of Shua and Lang patents.

patentIPR2025-01464

Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.

Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.

patentIPR2025-01345

Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call