Short Summary
USAA and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00751 concerning patent 9,876,771 after resolving related district‑court litigation.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00751, USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies, LLC jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,876,771. The parties cite compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), noting that they have settled all disputes, including the dismissal of the parallel district‑court case (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-321-DAE). They argue that continuing the proceeding would waste resources and discourage future settlements, and therefore request the Board to end the review at this early stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in USAA Federal Savings Bank vs PACid Technologies, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al.vsSonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s audio playback patent (U.S. 10,853,023) by asserting anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references, Barbe and Richenstein. The petition also argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 802.11ax Wi‑Fi patent, arguing the Board ignored settled expectations, misapplied the diverse‑subject‑matter test, and ignored Samsung’s contradictory indefiniteness positions.
Apple, Inc.vsTHL Holding Company, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 11-19 unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Kalliola and other references taught or suggested multiple limitations, particularly regarding UWB DoA and location tracking. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the device location/ranging space.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and co-petitioners successfully challenged the '370 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that combinations of prior art references like Vosteen589/Starns or Downs-Boiler/Mass-EPA rendered key claims obvious.
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.