Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLC

IPR2025-01352

Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01352
Decision Date
8 May 2025
Filing Date
8 May 2025

Detailed Summary

In IPR2025-01352 concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,620,659, Microsoft Corporation and patent owner Dialect, LLC jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review prior to any institution decision. The parties disclosed that they had entered into a settlement agreement on November 30, 2025, resolving all outstanding disputes over multiple patents, including the '659 patent. Citing public policy favoring settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and the early stage of the proceeding, they requested the Board to dismiss the case without prejudice. The Board was asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential business information. The motion reflects a strategic decision to avoid further litigation and potential estoppel.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs Dialect, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00354

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.

patentIPR2025-00819

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

ClearCorrect Operating successfully instituted the IPR against Align Technology's dental appliance patent by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board found sufficient motivation in prior art references to combine them and support the claims under Section 103.

patentIPR2024-00868

Ericsson Inc. et al.vsXR COMMUNICATIONS LLC

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).

patentIPR2025-01183

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑based payment patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier wireless transaction systems.

patentIPR2025-00274

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

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