Short Summary
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.
Detailed Summary
In a joint motion filed in IPR2024‑00987, IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. seek to have their settlement agreement sealed as business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. The parties contend that the agreement, which resolves their patent dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,905,742, contains confidential terms and should be kept separate from the patent file and accessible only under limited circumstances. They reference the Board’s rules and the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide to support their request for confidentiality.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in IKEA Supply AG et al. vs Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for 9912914, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on all challenged obviousness grounds (103). The petitioner argued that combinations of prior art references—including Yerazunis, Fiore, Ely, and Lewellen—would render claims 1-23 obvious to a POSITA.
SNAP INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before institution. The Board granted the parties' joint motions and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
Kubota North America Corporation et al.vsVermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response to Kubota’s PGR petition argues that the cited Korean patent KR996 fails to disclose the pivotal attachment of linkages and actuators to the mainframe, a core limitation of claims 4‑14. The owner seeks denial of the petition on both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.
Shuttleslide, LLCvsSea Swivel Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00089 because the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of success standard required under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
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.