Intel Corp. et al. v. General Video, LLC

IPR2025-01039

Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, executing a settlement agreement and requesting the court to vacate the upcoming case management conference. The settlement includes payment and a stipulation of dismissal, effectively ending the litigation.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01039
Decision Date
27 May 2025
Filing Date
27 May 2025

Detailed Summary

In a joint notice filed on August 23, 2017, counsel for Lattice Semiconductor Corp. and Technicolor entities announced that they have resolved all claims between them through a Settlement Agreement executed on August 21, 2017. The agreement provides for payment by September 29, 2017 and the filing of a Stipulation of Dismissal shortly thereafter. Accordingly, the parties have requested the Northern District of California to vacate the scheduled case management conference and suspend all related deadlines, effectively terminating the litigation.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Intel Corp. et al. vs General Video, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00049

Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patentPGR2026-00042

Wealth, Inc.vs--

Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.

patentIPR2026-00099

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google successfully challenged Target’s ’359 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.

patentIPR2025-01375

SNAP INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 11,805,267. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that termination will save resources and promote settlement policy.

patentIPR2025-01210

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.

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