Short Summary
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-01425 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,197,258 B2, Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. and patent owner Rotolight Limited submitted a joint request to the PTAB to treat the settlement agreement between them as business confidential information. Citing 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), they argue the materials should be kept separate from the public patent file and disclosed only to government agencies or parties demonstrating good cause. The Board’s prior authorization on January 8, 2025, is referenced to support the timeliness of the request.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. vs -- is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsActive Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless Technologies have settled their 5G NR patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a InstacartvsFall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its discretionary denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits. The decision upholds the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.
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.