Short Summary
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Detailed Summary
In an email dated March 19, 2026, Lenovo counsel James M. Heintz informed the PTAB Director that the parties had reached a settlement concerning IPR2024-00109, which challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,474,016 related to secure communications. Consequently, Lenovo will not file the required response to the patent owner's Director Review request, signaling that the dispute will be resolved outside the PTAB process. The communication serves as formal notice of the settlement and the termination of further procedural steps in the IPR.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. vs Intellectual Ventures II is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Deere & CompanyvsDavid’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against a grading‑system patent owned by David’s Dozer V‑Loc System. The patent owner contends the petition misstates the law on motivation to combine and that the prior‑art teaches away, making review futile.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The PTAB found all ten claims (12‑21) unpatentable as obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of five patents owned by Dialect, LLC, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board cited the patents’ age, subsidiary ownership, and a parallel district court case as reasons to avoid duplication.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its constituents have moved to terminate the IPR concerning the ’517 emissions patent after WEC Energy Group settled with BirchTech. The motion cites statutory requirements and public policy favoring settlement before any merits decision.
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.