National Beef Packing Company, LLC v. Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

IPR2024-01156

National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the related IPRs. The motion relies on statutory authority and Board precedent favoring termination after settlement.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01156
Filing Date
31 July 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00098

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.

patentIPR2025-01189

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01189, seeking to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.

patentIPR2025-00010

Innoscience America, Inc. et al.vsInfineon Technologies Americas Corp.

The PTAB denied Innoscience America's petition to institute IPR against Infineon Technologies regarding patent 9070755. The Board found that factors favoring discretionary denial, such as overlap with a parallel ITC investigation, outweighed arguments for institution.

patentIPR2024-01167

Kia Corporation et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC

The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.

patentIPR2025-01189

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC

Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

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