Short Summary
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,415,760 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00119 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,415,760, petitioner US Conec Ltd. and patent owner Senko Advanced Components, Inc. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and to treat it as a separate paper. Citing the sensitivity of the settlement’s business information, they also submitted a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, indicating that the dispute has been resolved through settlement. The request was signed by counsel Jason D. Eisenberg for the petitioner and Kurt F. James for the patent owner.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in US Conec Ltd. vs Senko Advanced Components, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC regarding patent 8645517. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. This moves the dispute into a trial phase at the PTAB.
Apple Inc.vsS.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al.vsAXA POWER APS et al.
The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al.vsArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 6 of Dialect’s ‘409 patent on dynamic speech sharpening. The challenger relies on the Bazzi paper and the Sabourin and Epstein patents to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.