Executive 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.
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
HighLevel, Inc.vsEtison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel's IPR against ClickFunnels, citing the efficiency of the patent system. The denial was based on a parallel District Court finding that the challenged claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.vsNike, Inc.
The PTAB denied Skechers' petition for IPR against Nike, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error regarding prior art already considered by the Examiner. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Advanced Bionics standard in discretionary denial proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAdvanced Coding Technologies, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Samsung's patent claims against Advanced Coding Technologies over video compression technology. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently explained how prior art combined to teach key claimed elements, leading to institution on all claims.
Syngenta Crop Protection AGvsInflexion Point Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Syngenta’s request for rehearing of its post‑grant review denial on patent 12,102,027. The Board concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the original decision.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al.vsNeapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025‑00090.
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.