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
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc.vsNatera, Inc.
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Databricks, Inc.vsByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed a petition to invalidate claims 24‑25 of ByteWeavr’s 7,949,752 patent, arguing obviousness over two older patents (Chow and White). The petition seeks institution of the IPR, citing prior PTAB rulings and Fintiv factor analysis.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.vs10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Nanostring Technologies challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Zhuang, Cai, and Shen. The petitioner asserts the core technology for 3D positional information in nucleic acid imaging was already well-known in biological imaging.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01457 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This allows the case to move forward to a merits 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.