Executive Summary
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,945,885 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MediaTek Inc. et al. vs MOSAID Technologies Inc.: is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.
Google LLCvsKove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before any trial was instituted.
AT&T Corp. et al.vsDaingean Technologies Ltd.
A coalition of major telecom companies (AT&T, Ericsson, Nokia, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent 10841958. The challenge asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Lee and Brismar.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
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.