Short Summary
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, alleging obviousness over a combination of cellular‑standard prior art. The petition argues the examiner missed critical references and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, Google LLC seeks to invalidate claims 1‑9 of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, which covers a device and method for judging communication quality in wireless systems. The challenger asserts that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the combined teachings of the IS‑54‑B standard, Dent, Yeh, Mårtensson (Ground 1) and IS‑54‑B, Dent, Su (Ground 2) render the invention obvious. Google contends that these references were not considered during prosecution, constituting a reversible error, and that no discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) or 325(d) is warranted, urging the Board to institute the 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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on the grounds that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory limits. The petition seeks reinstatement of the Board’s original institution decision.
Kia America, Inc. et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for Kia America against Emerging Automotive, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationvsKlein Tools, Inc.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. filed a PGR petition challenging four claims of Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting lack of written description, added matter, obviousness over multiple helmet references, and anticipation by Klein's 2019 news release.
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsLG Display Co., Ltd.
Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,071,207 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
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.