Executive Summary
Google and Motorola settled their IPR dispute with Multifold over U.S. Patent 9,792,007 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
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 Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Regeneron’s aflibercept eye‑drug patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness based on earlier clinical studies and publications.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al.vsGodo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR against a magnetic tunnel junction patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director review to vacate the institution, arguing that piecemeal review of one of nine related patents is inefficient and contrary to AIA policy.
NULIDS, LLCvsBlephEx, LLC
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD.vsATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries challenged ATI Technologies' patent 8760454 in an IPR, arguing the unified shader claims are obvious. The petitioner bases its case on combining multiple prior art patents related to graphics processing and load balancing.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 regarding dermatological treatment devices. The petition asserts compelling grounds for unpatentability under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on multiple prior art references.
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.