Short Summary
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00391 concerning U.S. Patent 8,141,784. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties request termination to conserve resources.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00391, challenger TransCore LP and patent owner Hand Held Products, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,141,784 after reaching a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes related to the patent. Citing statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and relevant CFR provisions, the parties argue that termination aligns with public policy encouraging settlement and that the Board has not yet issued an institution decision. They also request that the settlement agreement be treated as business‑confidential information.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in TransCore LP vs Hand Held Products, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
FreightCar America, Inc.vsNational Steel Car Limited
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sanas.AI’s 12,417,756 patent covering real‑time accent mimicking, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art speech‑processing references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsDatonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a ChefmanvsSharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
RJ Brands has filed an IPR petition challenging SharkNinja’s dual‑air‑fryer patent, arguing lack of priority support and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Zhang, Conrad, Philips and Moon.
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.