Short Summary
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑01178 concerning U.S. Patent 8,695,486, Starbucks Corporation and patent owner Pi‑Design AG have reached a settlement. The parties filed a joint motion requesting that the settlement agreement, filed as Exhibit 1028, be treated as business‑confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). They contend the settlement contains no patentability‑relevant material and should be kept separate from the patent file, accessible only upon a showing of good cause.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Starbucks Corporation et al. vs Pi-Design AG et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,986,695 covering uplink cancellation signaling. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Ying, Yang, Kim and Boroujeni. Detailed technical comparisons are provided to support the unpatentability argument.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al.vsARCELORMITTAL
POSCO has filed an authorized response seeking Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal’s steel patent. The petitioner argues the Board’s reliance on Fintiv precedent and lack of overlap with parallel ITC proceedings makes institution improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01189, seeking to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc.vsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. successfully moved forward in the IPR against CM HK LIMITED, achieving a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1. The Board focused heavily on obviousness arguments concerning sensor fusion and Kalman filter implementations using quaternion mathematics.
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.