Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
National Beef Packing Company, LLC and Institute for Environmental Health, Inc. have reached a settlement that resolves all underlying disputes concerning four patents (including U.S. Patent No. 9,845,486). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, they jointly filed a motion to terminate four inter partes reviews (IPR2024-00183, IPR2024-00185, IPR2024-00186, and IPR2024-01156). The Board’s policy and prior decisions support termination when parties settle before a final written decision, conserving resources. The motion seeks prompt termination of the IPRs.
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 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.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a petition to invalidate Halozyme’s ’298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply attacks Halozyme’s reliance on functional language and disclaimed dependent claims.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied petitions for review of institution decisions in three IPRs challenging Stratasys patents, including U.S. Patent 9,421,713. The denial leaves the institution decisions standing.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to terminate an IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board must decide whether to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
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.