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
Filing Date
8 May 2025
Outcome
terminated or settled

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

patentIPR2024-01010

Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsBell Semiconductor, LLC

NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.

patentIPR2024-00697

Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Resonant Systems' patent claims related to Linear Resonant Vibration Modules (LRVM). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

patentIPR2024-00122

US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.

Petitioner US Conec Ltd. filed an IPR against Senko Advanced Components' patent 11061190; the patent owner submitted a preliminary response.

patentIPR2024-01211

Avanos Medical, Inc.vsStratus Medical, LLC

The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over Racz, Fitz, and Lee based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted Petitioner's broad definition of 'thermal ablation systems,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow focus on 'RF neurotomy.'

patentIPR2024-00639

Under Armour, Inc.vsAthalonz, LLC

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.

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