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.vsSTA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their dispute over Patent 8,145,249, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsQuicker Connections LLC
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al.vsLongitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑01281, citing a settlement that they want kept confidential under §317. The Board is asked to seal the settlement and end the proceeding.
Straumann USA, LLC et al.vsSmart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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.