US PTAB IP Litigation

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01301

Harman International Industries and CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01300

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01301

Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01300

Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and others settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, requesting a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The agreement ends the PTAB challenge to patent 7,612,805.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

patent denied · Aug 30, 2024

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, seeking a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01364

Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑39 of Varia’s RFID‑related patent are obvious. The Board denied Varia’s request for director review, leaving the unpatentability decision intact.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01364

Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01363

Apple’s IPR against Varia Holdings’ RFID‑emulation patent resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all 32 claims unpatentable. Varia now seeks Director Review, arguing the Board relied on an unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Reply.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Nikon and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,612,805. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01301

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to file a dismissal stipulation. The dispute will be resolved without further litigation.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01176

Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01300

Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01176

Court decision.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01176

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.

· PGR2024-00050

Simpson Strong‑Tie has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute review of U.S. Patent 11,920,339, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art hangers. The petition seeks institution of post‑grant review for all 31 claims.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01386

Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.