Executive 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.
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
Biofrontera Incorporated et al.vsSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The USPTO denied Biofrontera's request for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against Sun Pharmaceutical's patent 11,446,512. The Board affirmed the discretionary denial, leaving the patent unchallenged.
Qorvo, Inc.vsCornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsVB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 52 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑advertising patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites §§102(b/e) and prior claim constructions to support unpatentability.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.vsUMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's IPR petition against Umbra Technologies regarding network security claims (1-26). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over the combined prior art teachings.
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.