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
Google LLCvsDialect LLC
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00751, leaving the institution of the IPR against Dialect’s patent in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board denied institution of IPR2025-01313 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential information.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.vsEvolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsConcurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.
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.