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

IPR2024-01390

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01390
Decision Date
18 September 2024
Filing Date
18 September 2024

Detailed Summary

In IPR2024-01390, Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC, together with Nokia Technologies Oy, filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137. The parties cite a settlement agreement that resolves all disputes concerning the patent and argue that the joint request satisfies the statutory requirement of filing before any merits decision is made under 35 U.S.C. §317(a). They further contend that termination will conserve resources and promote settlement-friendly policy. The motion includes requests to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c).

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amazon.com, Inc. et al. vs Nokia Technologies Oy is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00885

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company

The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.

patentIPR2024-01199

Hanwha Solutions CorporationvsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).

patentIPR2025-00371

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al.vsArcelorMittal

POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.

patentIPR2025-01181

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based device‑identification patent was denied. The Board found the petition lacked sufficient evidence to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the asserted claims.

patentIPR2025-00611

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stratasys, Inc.'s patent 11886774. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 based on the combination of prior art references Douglas and Mark.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call