Short Summary
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of its IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2021 wireless‑location patent. The petition argues the denial misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and relied on a rescinded guidance memo.
Detailed Summary
In Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing of Decision Granting Patent Owner’s Discretionary Denial, Google LLC and Samsung affiliates challenge the PTAB Director’s refusal to institute an inter‑partes review of Mullen Industries LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 11,109,218, which covers methods for remotely locating a wireless device. The petition contends that the Director improperly applied the Fintiv balancing test, failed to consider that 95% of the patent’s 19 claims are unaddressed in the parallel district‑court litigation, and ignored the Sotera stipulation that should preclude discretionary denial. Moreover, the petition alleges that the Director retroactively applied a rescinded Vidal memorandum, violating due‑process principles. Petitioners seek reversal of the denial and referral of the case to the merits panel.
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 et al. vs Mullen Industries LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Capital One, National Association et al.vs--
Capital One and Hulu filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement with Implicit confidential and to end the IPR over patent 8,056,075. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,668,430, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
WebGroup Czech Republic challenges DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting that 27 claims are obvious over earlier streaming patents and standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR, arguing strong merits and favorable discretionary factors.
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.