Short Summary
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-01150 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,632,815, Curtis Industries, LLC and B & D Technologies, LLC submitted a joint request to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information. Citing 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c), they seek to keep the agreement separate from the public patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties demonstrating good cause. The filing includes signatures from counsel at Fish & Richardson and AdamsIP, and a certificate of service confirming delivery to the opposing party.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Curtis Industries, LLC et al. vs B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NVIDIA CorporationvsLowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
The USPTO denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in four IPRs, leaving the original denial in place.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al.vsIntercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
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. The request emphasizes protection of settlement amounts and private banking information.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-00887 and IPR2025-00888. The PTAB Director limited the patent owner Pantech’s response to 15 pages, to be filed within five business days, and barred new evidence.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
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.