TransCore, LP v. Hand Held Products, Inc.

IPR2024-00443

TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00443 concerning U.S. Patent 8,919,654. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00443
Decision Date
1 December 2024
Filing Date
1 December 2024

Detailed Summary

In IPR2024‑00443, challenger TransCore, LP and patent owner Hand Held Products, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,919,654 after reaching a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes over the patent. Citing 35 U.S.C. § 317 and relevant CFR provisions, the parties request the Board treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential and dismiss the proceeding, emphasizing that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that settlement aligns with public policy encouraging dispute resolution. The motion includes references to case law supporting settlement and seeks to conserve resources for both the Board and the parties.

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

patentIPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.

Align Technology seeks Director review to vacate the institution of IPR2025-00817 against its intraoral scanner patent. The petitioner’s earlier trial‑date projection is shown to be inaccurate, the cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitation, and the petitioner failed to disclose all foreign real parties in interest.

patentIPR2026-00032

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2025-00885

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company

The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.

patentIPR2026-00067

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al.vsMYW Semitech, LLC

TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of MYW Semitech’s chip‑package patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references covering interposer and bump technologies.

patentIPR2025-00366

Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call