3Shape A/S et al. v. Medit Corporation et al.

IPR2024-01268

3Shape and Medit have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under patent‑law confidentiality provisions.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01268
Filing Date
13 August 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01102

Google LLCvsPOINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.

patentIPR2025-00718

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR as to Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, arguing that no merits decision has been made and that settlement serves public policy goals.

patentIPR2025-00606

NVIDIA CorporationvsNeural AI, LLC

NVIDIA has filed a petition for inter partes review of Neural AI’s U.S. Patent 8,648,867, seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on NVIDIA’s own earlier patents (Nickolls and Kirk) together with the GPU Gems book to show that the claimed accelerator controller and pointer‑swapping were known.

patentIPR2025-00837

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsQPRIVACY USA LLC

Cisco has filed a rehearing request after the PTAB director denied institution of its IPR on patent 11,106,824, arguing that a prior Sotera stipulation eliminates concerns of duplicate litigation. The petition cites Federal Circuit case law to support its position.

patentIPR2025-01161

Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, alleging obviousness over a combination of cellular‑standard prior art. The petition argues the examiner missed critical references and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call