Short Summary
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,391,937 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or merits, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-01444 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,391,937, covering a system and method for controlling electronic communications, petitioner Aktana, Inc. and patent owner Veeva Systems Inc. have reached a settlement that resolves all outstanding issues, including a parallel district‑court case dismissed with prejudice. The parties filed a joint motion under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 to terminate the IPR, emphasizing that the proceeding is at an early stage with no preliminary response filed and that settlement aligns with public‑policy goals and judicial economy. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aktana, Inc vs Veeva Systems Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsMultifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Multifold International has submitted a Director Review request in IPR2025-00058 against Google. The petitioner may file a concise, five‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.
Intel Corp. et al.vsGeneral Video, LLC.
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video's ’786 HDMI 3D video patent. They argue the claims are obvious over prior art references Tu, Suzuki, and Lida. The petition requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.
Kahoot! AS et al.vsinterstellar inc.
Kahoot! filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB institution decision, arguing the filing is timely and requesting correction of the document type and fee payment assistance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-01431 covering DRAM technology. Samsung contends the Director has already rejected Netlist’s arguments and that no new facts merit reconsideration. The request is therefore urged to be denied.
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.