Short Summary
ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00304, ASUSTek Computer Inc. moved to withdraw its petition challenging VideoLabs, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 8,291,236. The request follows the termination of three related Roku IPRs (IPR2024-01023 to -01025) after a settlement, which the Board noted makes ASUS's joinder motions moot and potentially bars the petitions under 35 U.S.C. §315(b). Citing its discretion under 37 C.F.R. §42.71(a), ASUS seeks dismissal to preserve Board resources. The motion was filed on February 27, 2025, and is pending Board action.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in ASUSTek Computer Inc. vs VideoLabs, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 patent. The patent owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding at the pre‑institution stage.
3Shape A/S et al.vsMedit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,262,864 before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to dismissal of the proceedings.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent.
TankLogix, LLCvsSitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of SitePro’s ‘680 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary factors favor institution.
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.