Dyson Technology Limited et al. v. Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

IPR2024-01162

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and prior Board guidance to support termination.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01162
Filing Date
7 November 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00374

iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.

The PTAB notified iRhythm and Welch Allyn that director review requests have been filed for several IPRs, giving the patent owner a five‑day window to submit a limited response without new evidence.

patentIPR2024-00402

AT&T Corp. et al.vsDaingean Technologies Ltd.

The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.

patentIPR2025-01309

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art clock‑control patents (Belt, Foster, Norris, Alberth) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patentIPR2025-00380

International Business Machines CorporationvsCroga Innovations Ltd.

IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.

patentIPR2024-00384

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

EndyMed Medical Ltd. and EndyMed Medical Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00384 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Serendia, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.

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