Executive Summary
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ’734 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board misread the claim scope by improperly tying it to a non‑limiting table example. Google seeks reversal so the trial can proceed.
Related Cases
Nikon Corporation et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices. The petition relies on Eagle and Mgrdechian as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al.vsSK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials seeks to block the PTAB Director's review of its successful institution of an IPR against SK Nexilis' 11,591,706 patent covering advanced material technology.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al.vsIntelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of patent 9098855 against Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on anticipation and obviousness grounds, primarily citing prior art from Deaton. This decision allows Quotient to proceed with challenging key claims related to coupon redemption networks.
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.