Google LLC et al. v. Mullen Industries LLC

IPR2025-00197

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 The petition argues the denial misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and relied on a rescinded guidance memo.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00197
Filing Date
15 November 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00326

Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.

patentIPR2024-01293

Bitsgap Holding OU et al.vsIntercurrency Software LLC

Bitsgap and co‑owners filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against Intercurrency Software’s foreign‑exchange trading patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the withdrawal request pending the patent owner’s mandatory notices.

patentIPR2025-00118

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.

patentIPR2025-00989

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.

Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical's 11,865,291 patent covering hemostasis valves. The petitioner asserts anticipation and obviousness based on Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

patentIPR2024-00788

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron Technology, Inc. filed an IPR challenging Yangtze Memory Technologies Company's 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (10658378). The petition asserts that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references like Toyama and Mushiga.

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