Short Summary
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00829 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, the petitioner, Applied Concepts Inc., and the patent owner, Kustom Signals Inc., filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The parties report that they have reached a comprehensive settlement that resolves all outstanding issues, including a related district‑court case. Citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and Board policy favoring settlement, they request that the PTAB dismiss the proceeding before any merits are decided.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Applied Concepts Inc. vs Kustom Signals Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.
Apple Inc.vsTopWire, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TopWire’s ’202 Patent covering a spacer‑connector package‑on‑package structure, alleging obviousness over Chen, Sun, Wu and Furuta references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Palisade’s U.S. Patent No. 8,148,962 before the Board had decided whether to institute the case. The motion relies on the Board’s discretion to terminate early‑stage proceedings and cites prior PTAB decisions granting similar dismissals.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.
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.