Inventor Takes Fight Against Google and Microsoft Back to USPTO on Sotera Issue Following CAFC Rehearing Denial

One day after her petition for rehearing was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), pro se inventor Carrie Hafeman has filed a petition for Extraordinary Director Review and Sua Sponte Review with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petition asks the Director to vacate institution and the Final Written Decisions in six related inter partes reviews (IPRs) due to alleged Sotera Stipulation violations by Google and Microsoft.

Hafeman, an independent inventor who has been fighting a years-long patent battle against the two tech giants, last month filed her petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc of the CAFC’s June 2026 precedential decision affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating all claims of three of her patents relating to remote device finder technology.

In June, the CAFC affirmed the decisions and also dismissed Hafeman’s argument that the IPRs should have been terminated based on the district court’s finding that LG–a real party in interest to the IPRs–violated its Sotera stipulation.

In her petition for rehearing, Hafeman primarily argued that the CAFC “overlooked or misapprehended the relationship among the words of the complete limitation” and that the decision cannot be reconciled with the en banc holding in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–15 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

In the petition for Director Review filed today, Hafeman said in a statement sent to IPWatchdog that she is asking the Office to address the following key question: “If a petitioner obtains institution based on a Sotera commitment, but that commitment is subsequently violated, who is responsible for enforcing it—and what happens if the violation is never fully addressed?”

LG filed a Sotera stipulation on November 30, 2022, promising that “if instituted, it would not pursue in district court ‘any ground that [Google or Microsoft] raised or reasonably could have raised’ in the IPRs,” according to Hafeman’s petition. The Board declined discretionary denial and instituted review based on that stipulation. But Hafeman argues LG violated the stipulation via “backdoor” methods to get around it, including relying on art from the IP in combination with other references. Hafeman claims she asserted the Sotera issue in all six IPR sur-replies and requested termination, but PTAB APJ Smith said the following at oral hearing:

“Let’s say we agree with you on 100 percent of the facts. We agree with you 100 percent. What would that have to do with us? I mean, when have we ever dismissed a petition because of a Sotera violation thing? What basis would we ever have for doing something like that?”

Hafeman’s counsel replied that “[a] broken stipulation is a basis,” an exchange Hafeman’s petition says “confirms that Patent Owner sought relief for the alleged Sotera violations and pressed the Board to address its authority to enforce the stipulations.”

However, counsel for Google and Microsoft sent an email reviewed by IPWatchdog to the USPTO today opposing the petition, in which they argued that Hafeman cannot seek “belated Director Review.”

According to the email, Hafeman did not seek review of the original decisions and the USPTO already “expended resources intervening in the appeal to oppose Patent Owner’s attempt to reopen the Sotera issue.” Granting the petition would “invert the review process and invite duplicative expenditure of agency resources,” added the email.

But Hafeman argued the issue warrants Director Review and noted that the opposition email “did not address the underlying evidence of the alleged Sotera violations, including the fact that Judge Alan Albright previously enforced the stipulation against LG on one issue during the district court litigation.”

Ultimately, Hafeman urged the Director to take the issue up because “a stipulation offered to secure discretionary institution should have meaningful consequences when materially violated.”

Hafeman also said she intends to seek Supreme Court review of the CAFC denial, arguing that her case raises “an important legal question extending well beyond my patents: whether courts must give effect to the complete language of a patent claim when determining what an invention actually requires.”

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: donscarpo
Image ID: 9470054