Short Summary
LithiumHub Technologies and Shenzhen FBTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994, seeking Board approval to dismiss the proceeding.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00825 concerning U.S. Patent 9,412,994 titled “Lithium starter battery and solid state switch therefor,” the Board issued a notice granting the petitioners three months to file a preliminary response. Before the deadline, the petitioners and Patent Owner reached a settlement and agreed to dismiss the IPR. The Patent Owner filed a Notice of Settlement, joining the petitioners’ request for an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR and to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board has yet to grant the dismissal authorization.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. vs LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Genius SportsvsSportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, asserting that claims 16‑30 are obvious or anticipated over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog references and urging the Board to institute the review.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al.vsMicron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsCOGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of COGMEDIA’s ’141 Patent, asserting that the claimed social‑card UI features were obvious over earlier patents such as McQueen and Forsyth.
Univacco Technology Inc.vsLEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
Univacco Technology Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of the ‘935 decorative‑foil patent, alleging lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on extensive expert analysis of the patent’s functional language and missing test protocols.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).
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.