Short Summary
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00471 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,849,843, petitioner EP Family Corp. and patent owner Office Kick Inc. have entered into a settlement agreement and jointly moved the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The motion emphasizes that the Board has not yet issued an institution decision or addressed the merits, and cites statutory authority (35 U.S.C. § 317(a)) and prior Board decisions supporting termination at the preliminary stage. The parties request that the settlement be treated as confidential business information and ask the Board to grant the joint termination request.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in EP Family Corp. vs Office Kick Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3‑6 of Genzyme’s ’542 AAV formulation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how Wu, Konz, Croyle, and Potter collectively disclose all claim limitations.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDamaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka’s U.S. 9,027,032 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over four prior‑art references that disclose similar APIs, function blocks, and authentication mechanisms.
Kia America, Inc. et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
AT&T Services Inc. et al.vsInnovative Sonic Limited
Major carriers including AT&T and T-Mobile have filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,736,883, which covers cellular network inter-node connectivity methods. The Petitioners argue that the patent is invalid under Sections 102 and 103 based on prior art references Centonza and Han.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs filed by Samsung, leaving the institution orders in place.
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.