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
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.vsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
Sony CorporationvsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.vsSinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.
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.