Short Summary
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to grant termination before any final written decisions are issued.
Detailed Summary
In a joint motion to terminate, National Beef Packing Company, LLC and Institute for Environmental Health, Inc. confirm that they have settled all underlying disputes concerning four patents (U.S. Patents 7,534,584; 8,822,143; 9,637,771; and 9,845,486) and request the PTAB to end the inter partes reviews IPR2024-00183, IPR2024-00185, IPR2024-00186, and IPR2024-01156. Citing 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and supporting Board policy favoring settlement, the parties argue that the record is not closed and the Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate. The motion references prior PTAB decisions that granted termination under similar circumstances.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in National Beef Packing Company, LLC vs Institute for Environmental Health, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al.vsSung, Chien-Min
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Samsung's 8974270, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that combining prior art references renders multiple claims unpatentable.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Costa and, when combined with Oh, lack patentability. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds and seeks institution.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure‑recovery patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Liu and Jover disclosures. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the patent.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s 11,799,131 patent covering lithium‑ion battery electrolytes and electrode structures, seeking cancellation of claims 14‑17 on obviousness grounds.
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsProcomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
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.