Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In a joint motion filed on December 27, 2024, MediaTek Inc. and MOSAID Technologies Inc. request the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,885. The parties cite a newly executed License and Rights Agreement that resolves all disputes concerning the patents, and note that the Board has not yet decided the merits of the case. They rely on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and prior Board practice allowing termination even after oral argument. The motion also references related district‑court litigation that has been dismissed with prejudice, underscoring the parties’ intent to end all related proceedings.
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
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑ion battery patent. The petitioner argues procedural errors, improper reliance on new evidence, and misinterpretation of prior‑art compaction‑density disclosures. It also urges denial based on parallel district‑court challenges.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,398,209 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLCvsDialect LLC
Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Dialect LLC's speech recognition patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its unpatentability grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision maintains the validity of the '7398209 patent in the context of ongoing district court litigation.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.vsUMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its ’595 patent. The petition argues the panel erred by equating the patent’s specific “list of available servers” request with a generic “services” request in the Hankins prior art, and by using the patent itself as a roadmap. It asks the Director to vacate the institution and terminate the proceeding.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al.vsNew Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,916,483, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
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.