Executive Summary
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs Apex Beam Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.vsST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,589,329 covering an acoustic‑device system. The petition relies on five prior‑art references and asserts §§102/103 unpatentability for all eleven claims.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al.vsMultifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's 8,836,842 patent covering dual‑screen handheld devices, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Chin and Whitehorn.
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Tesla, Inc.vsRelink US LLC
Tesla challenges Relink US LLC's '755 Patent in an IPR, alleging that the claims are anticipated by Serban and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petition details multiple grounds under 102 and 103 across all 20 claims, focusing on grid-tied photovoltaic power management systems.
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.