Short Summary
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00267, petitioner Entegris, Inc. and patent owner Inpria Corp. filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The parties cite a settlement agreement that resolves all disputes related to the ’903 Patent and argue that public policy and PTAB guidance favor termination after settlement. The Board had instituted the review on February 17, 2026, but the Patent Owner had not yet filed its response. The motion includes a request to keep the settlement confidential. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding, conserving resources and honoring the parties’ agreement.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Entegris, Inc. vs Inpria Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,571,833 after instituting the review. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’833 patent succeeded, finding all 28 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills references.
Intel Corporation et al.vsCollision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Director denied the institution of multiple IPRs filed by Union Electric Company against MES, Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
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.