Short Summary
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution, and the parties seek dismissal to preserve resources.
Detailed Summary
In a joint motion filed on January 27, 2025, 3Shape A/S (and 3Shape Inc.) and Medit Corporation request the termination of Inter Partes Review IPR2024-01266 concerning U.S. Patent 9,262,864. Citing a settlement agreement that resolves all related disputes—including parallel district court actions in the Western District of Texas—the parties argue that good cause exists for termination because the patent owner has not filed a Preliminary Response and the Board has not yet issued an institution decision. The motion emphasizes judicial economy and the mutual interest of the parties, and includes a request to keep the settlement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §42.74(c).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in 3Shape A/S et al. vs Medit Corporation et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.vsEvolution Malta Limited
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Light & Wonder against Evolution Malta, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kido anticipates claims related to roulette wagering systems. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'payout' including progressive jackpots.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three related IPRs, leaving the original institution denials in place.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsQPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,816,249 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on three prior‑art patents (Burns, Yang, Guruswamy). The petition argues that the Board should institute trial and rejects any discretionary denial.
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.