Executive 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.
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
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.vsNike, Inc.
Skechers' IPR challenge against Nike regarding knit textile footwear was denied by the PTAB. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, despite adopting the patent owner's claim construction for 'article of footwear.'
Apple Inc.vsCarbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's biometric fraud detection patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Stone and Hoyos. This decision sets the stage for a trial focusing on how existing financial security methods could be combined to achieve the claimed results.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Tommy John, Inc.vsPakage Apparel, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims (1-13, 15, 16) were unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Board accepted Petitioner's argument that Kitsch satisfied key limitations like 'stretch panel,' and broadly construed material requirements to favor the petitioner.
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
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.