Short Summary
Bose and IngenioSpec jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01548 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,829,518, Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC submitted a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be designated as business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties argue that the agreement contains proprietary commercial details that should not be part of the public patent record and should only be disclosed to federal agencies or parties demonstrating a compelling need. The motion, signed by counsel Reza Mirzaie and Michael N. Rader, seeks to keep the settlement document separate from the patent file and restrict its accessibility.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Bose Corporation vs IngenioSpec, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of its mixed‑level NAND flash memory patent, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim likely unpatentable.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsConcurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition against the ’596 patent is challenged by Concurrent Ventures and XtreamEdge, who argue the petition fails to identify claim construction and does not show prior art meets the claimed hardware queue limitations, seeking a discretionary denial of institution.
Element TV Company, LP et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have reached a settlement and jointly request the PTAB to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR. The motion relies on statutory provisions protecting settlement confidentiality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent succeeded; all 24 claims were found obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and thus unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential. The parties seek to have Exhibit 1029 treated as business confidential information and separated from the patent file.
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.