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
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al.vsSung, Chien-Min
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00535 concerning patent 9,724,802. The order confirms that the decision stands.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks to block Stratasys’s request for a Director Review of an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,569,466. The petitioner argues the referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that the broad stipulation eliminates any parallel district‑court litigation. The Board is urged to deny the review request.
Apple Inc.vsMessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of MessageLoud’s ’728 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.
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.