Short Summary
Google has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ patent 8,090,025, arguing procedural errors and improper discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00998, Google LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that denied institution of its inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025 owned by Advanced Coding Technologies LLC. Google contends the Board violated the Prior Findings Memo by not explaining a contrary outcome to a prior institution decision on the same claims, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and misapplied a rescinded 2022 Guidance without required notice‑and‑comment rulemaking, thereby breaching the APA. The petition highlights expert testimony from Dr. Cliff Reader and prior art references Mualla, Shirani, and Saito‑2005, and references earlier IPR proceedings (IPR2024-00374, IPR2025-00217) to demonstrate consistency of arguments. Google requests reversal of the denial and proper institution of the IPR.
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 vs Advanced Coding Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The decision was based on discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsCold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. The denial was based on a review of the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Liberty Energy Services LLC et al.vsU.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' ’801 patent covering a mobile hydraulic fracturing power system. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over combinations of existing power‑distribution references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
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.