US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Oct 7, 2024

LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the PTAB post‑grant review. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. §327(b) and related regulations.

LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 7, 2024

LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,781,148 covering yeast metabolic engineering.

LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.

LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica settled their post‑grant review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,781,148. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petition, terminating the proceeding.

patent · Oct 7, 2024

LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.

LCY Biotechnology has filed a PGR petition challenging Radici Chimica’s 2023 patent on engineered yeast for terpene production, arguing obviousness over Bailey and Zhang and lack of enablement due to the claim breadth.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

patent instituted · Oct 5, 2024

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Nokia has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to vacate its decision to institute an IPR against Amazon's video‑coding patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the POSITA standard and ignored the inventor's "skip coding mode" terminology.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon seeks director review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s ‘808 patent covering a redefined skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored the patent’s explicit lexicography.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential under statutory provisions.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Nokia filed a Director Review Request asking the USPTO to overturn the Board’s decision to institute IPR2024-00847 against Amazon. The petition argues the Board erred in combining mutually exclusive video‑coding modes and ignored the term “skip coding mode.”

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00891

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00891 covering U.S. Patent No. 11,020,031. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits. The parties also seek termination of related IPRs and a district‑court case.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00891

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.

patent instituted · Oct 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00890

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00890 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue good cause for termination.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s AR‑mirror patent in an IPR. The PTAB instituted the review, and EyesMatch’s response argues that none of the cited references disclose the claim limitations under the narrow construction obtained in the district court.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

EyesMatch Ltd. seeks Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found all claims of its imaging patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends Samsung and Google introduced new arguments and prior art in a reply, violating IPR rules and inconsistent claim constructions. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon seeks a Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent covering a novel skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board’s obviousness findings are unsupported and misinterpret the patent’s terminology.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Samsung Electronics and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,110 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and filed a joint request to treat the settlement documents as confidential. The parties seek termination of the proceeding while keeping the settlement details out of the public record.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00891

Court decision.

patent denied · Oct 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00890

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,020,031 B1. The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.