Executive 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.
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
Belden Inc. et al.vsCommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd.vs--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs before any merits were decided and to keep the settlement confidential.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al.vsBelden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422 B2 is likely unpatentable over prior art references Fukui and Sedor. The Board instituted the IPR on all 47 challenged claims based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8093767) regarding vibration modules and haptics. The Petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 103.
HL Klemove CorporationvsForas Technologies Limited
HL Klemove Corporation filed an institution petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are rendered obvious by combining prior art references Bigbee and Nguyen in the field of fault-tolerant processors.
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.