Short Summary
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm them if disclosed.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00850 concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814, Microsoft Corp. and VirtaMove, Corp. submitted a joint request that the PTAB treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The parties argue that the agreement contains highly sensitive information whose public disclosure would substantially harm their business interests. They seek an order that the agreement be kept separate from the patent file and that any access requests be served on both parties for a response.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corp. vs VirtaMove, Corp. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The Board issued a final decision finding that all challenged claims (19) were unpatentable. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness and anticipation based on combining prior art references in the field of SOI switching circuits.
ROBE lighting s.r.o.vsGuangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.'s patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness regarding light fixture sealing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the '373 patent is unpatentable based on prior art reference Jurik.
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Guides Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR against Adeia Guides before the Board instituted the trial. The motion relies on prior PTAB precedent that favors early termination to save resources.
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.