Short Summary
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024‑00963 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,701,321, challenger VusionGroup SA and patent owner Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. entered into a final settlement agreement. On May 30, 2025, the parties jointly filed a request to terminate the proceeding and to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). They seek to keep the agreement separate from the public patent file and request Board notification of any production requests.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in VusionGroup SA et al. vs Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amphenol CorporationvsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy)vsEli Lilly & Co.
Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsCerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies opposed Revvo Technologies' petition, arguing that Revvo used inconsistent claim constructions across forums without justification. The Board affirmed the Director’s order vacating the institution, denying the petition.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Champion’s ’145 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art engine manuals and patents.
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.