Short Summary
Microsoft and EyesMatch jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under business‑confidential rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. §327 and related regulations.
Detailed Summary
In the IPR2025-00296 proceeding concerning U.S. Patent 8,982,110, Microsoft Corporation and patent owner EyesMatch Ltd. filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information. Citing 35 U.S.C. §327(a) and (b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c), they seek to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure to federal agencies or parties demonstrating good cause. The Board previously authorized the filing of this request on September 8, 2025.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs EyesMatch Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy)vsEli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent against Empower Clinic Services’ request for Director Review. The PTAB affirmed the discretionary denial of institution, citing Lilly’s strong settled expectations and lack of material examination error.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al.vsHEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung and several major carriers settled their inter partes review of Headwater’s wireless patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
A statistical study of 2021 IPR final written decisions shows that patents deemed unpatentable typically have extensive prior‑art citations and often rely on new prior art and expert testimony introduced during the proceeding.
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.