IKEA Supply AG et al. v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IPR2024-00987

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) in IPR2024-00987.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00987
Filing Date
31 May 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00137

Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB, in a Director Review, denied institution of Samsung's inter partes review against Headwater's patent, citing the timing of a parallel court proceeding as a decisive discretionary factor.

patentIPR2024-01389

Tableau Software, LLC et al.vsiCharts LLC

Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found insufficient evidence that prior art references taught or suggested the claimed interactive data visualization features.

patentIPR2025-00114

Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA

Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (US 11,572,879 B2). The Board adopted broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to institution on all 15 challenged claims.

patentIPR2025-00226

Globus Medical, Inc.vsSpinelogik, Inc.

Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.

patentIPR2025-00085

MediaTek, Inc. et al.vsRedstone Logics LLC

MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor voltage and clock management, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call