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
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over Patent 7,917,367 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
Apple Inc.vsS.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
Tesla, Inc.vsBulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 11,932,230, which covers vehicle gear‑selection control. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al.vsApplied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules, citing Wu and Mizue as anticipatory prior art.
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.