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
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO denied Liberty Energy's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00031, leaving the IPR proceeding intact.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
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.