Short Summary
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.
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
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies patents.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc.vsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SEvsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple succeeded in invalidating Omni MedSci's wearable physiological measurement patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims obvious over prior art.
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.