Executive 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.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung and Google's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341 concerning patent 8,406,733.
Databricks, Inc.vsByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.
Amazon Web Services, Inc.vsCroga Innovations Ltd.
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
American Airlines, Inc. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' ’722 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references covering real‑time data updates and routing networks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsW&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
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.