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
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s ’359 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,933,370, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the patent lacks written‑description support for its priority date. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality rules. The filing cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR provisions.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
Serendia requests Director Review to terminate IPR2024-00384, arguing the Board improperly expedited institution of time‑barred petitions despite a pending ITC validity finding. The petition cites the rescinded Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances to seek dismissal.
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.