Short Summary
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations and Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance on Sotera stipulations.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for rehearing, Google and co‑petitioners contend that the PTAB improperly denied institution of an inter‑partes review of Mullen Industries’ U.S. Patent No. 11,246,024, which covers methods for remotely locating a wireless device. They argue the Director’s decision ignored the settled‑expectations framework that favors early challenges, failed to consider the fact that Google is not a party to the parallel district‑court litigation, and misapplied the Fintiv balancing test. The petition also alleges that the Board retroactively applied the rescission of the Vidal Memo, violating due‑process and the Administrative Procedure Act. Google requests that the denial be reversed and the case referred 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
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al.vsLumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,037,618 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior patents and publications.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’933 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of three prior‑art references covering multi‑RAT Wi‑Fi systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute asks the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR brought by Samsung, arguing that all challenged patents share the same 802.11ax Wi‑Fi technology and therefore do not meet the “diverse range of subject matter” standard.
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.