Short Summary
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks limited access and notification of any disclosure attempts.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00582 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,107,324, Apple Inc. and patent owner ImberaTek, LLC submitted a joint request to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board asking that the full settlement agreement (Exhibit 1150) be treated as business‑confidential information. The parties ask that the agreement be kept separate from the patent file, that access be limited to federal agencies upon written request and good cause, and that they be notified of any access requests. The request cites 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and related confidentiality rules, reflecting the parties’ desire to protect the terms of their settlement from public disclosure.
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
Apple Inc.vsS.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB denied US Conec's request to institute IPR against Senko Advanced Components, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims related to fiber optic connectors.
Minka Lighting, LLCvsWangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance settled their IPR dispute over a lighting patent before the trial was instituted. The Board dismissed the petition and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Apple Inc.vsS.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
Google LLCvsProxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
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.