Short Summary
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam, LLC have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,916,483. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of further contest.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00713 concerning U.S. Patent 6,916,483, Intersect ENT, Inc. (the petitioner) and New Amsterdam, LLC (the patent owner) filed a corrected joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion is grounded in a non‑exclusive license and settlement agreement that resolves the underlying infringement litigation against Medtronic in both the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas. The parties argue that, with the dispute settled and no preliminary response filed by the patent owner, the Board should grant termination without imposing estoppel. The filing includes exhibits of related patents and court filings, and requests that the settlement be treated as confidential business information.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. vs New Amsterdam, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Askeladden L.L.C.vsIntercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's '930 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed automated trading and currency conversion methods are conventional features of electronic financial systems known prior to 2007.
Fifth Third Bank, National AssociationvsUnited Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly filed a motion to stay all deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to file dismissal papers.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’344 Bluetooth beacon patent, alleging obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and invalidate the challenged claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of NL Giken’s ’236 TV safety‑monitoring patent, alleging obviousness over several pre‑AIA references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted under the Fintiv framework.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.vsSpruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences' U.S. Patent 10,849,908 covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims.
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.