Short Summary
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00402, C.R. Bard, Inc. challenged claims 8–22 of Medline Industries, LP’s U.S. Patent 11,661,220 B2. Before the Board could decide whether to institute a trial, the parties reached a settlement and filed a Joint Motion to Terminate the proceeding. Citing that no trial had been instituted, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the motion, dismissed the petition, and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential information. The decision does not constitute a final written decision on patentability.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. vs Medline Industries, LP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their FPGA patent. They contend that recent court delays and the cancellation of a Markman hearing render the Board's discretionary denial inappropriate.
Kohler Co.vsDelta Faucet Company et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 24 claims of the patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a broad construction for key terms like 'outer illumination surface' and 'translucent light pipe,' supporting the finding of obviousness across multiple grounds.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of U.S. Patent 8,907,425, which covers stress‑relief structures for MISFETs. The petitioner asserts that combinations of known prior‑art references make the claims obvious under §103. No claim construction is required, and the petition seeks institution of the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
Evenflo Company, Inc. et al.vsBaby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo and affiliated companies have filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of review for claims 1‑9 and 17‑20.
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.