Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC

IPR2024-00707

HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00707
Judge(s)
Karl D. Easthom, Norman H. Beamer, Russell E. Cass
Decision Date
19 March 2024

Detailed Summary

In IPR2024-00707, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Cisco Systems, Inc. jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless LLC's U.S. Patent 7,924,802 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes. The parties also requested that the settlement agreements be treated as business‑confidential information. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, noting that no merits decision had been rendered, granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential, effectively ending the proceeding without a final written decision on patent validity.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. vs Cobblestone Wireless LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00718

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to terminate an IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board must decide whether to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.

patentIPR2025-00172

Apple Inc.vsDH International Ltd

DH International seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Apple’s ‘294 patent, arguing discretionary denial based on settled expectations and a defective translation of the Suga reference that should not count as prior art.

patentIPR2025-01114

Snap, Inc.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Snap, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,175,148 covering video‑encoding quantization techniques. The petition asserts obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards and requests cancellation of all 23 claims.

patentIPR2025-00300

LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al.vsMultimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).

patentIPR2026-00104

Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP

Apple’s petition challenges Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s ’077 Wi‑Fi patent. Wilus seeks Director Review, arguing settled expectations and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions merit denial of institution. The Board had previously instituted the IPR.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call