Short Summary
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00580 concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,222,723, Apple Inc. and patent owner ImberaTek, LLC submitted a joint request to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board seeking to have the settlement agreement (Exhibit 1150) designated as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties ask that the agreement be kept separate from the patent file and disclosed only upon a written request, a fee, and a showing of good cause, with notification of any such requests. This filing underscores the parties' intent to keep the terms of their settlement sealed from public view.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs ImberaTek, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to FaceTec's facial recognition patent.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple won a PTAB IPR against Omni MedSci, finding 12 of the 23 challenged claims of the 10,517,484 B2 wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light have settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,343,114.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent and granted joinder of Czech challenger Webgroup and NKL Associates, linking the case to a prior IPR over the same claims.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple files an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of HBCU Messaging’s ’450 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references covering mobile messaging.
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.