Executive 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.
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
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’880 patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. The Petitioners’ arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsOptronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s ’842 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski as prior art to establish anticipation and obviousness. The decision underscores the vulnerability of proximity‑based transaction patents.
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.