Short Summary
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,482,517. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01144 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,482,517, Perfect Corporation (petitioner) and Zugara, Inc. (patent owner) reached a settlement. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review and a request to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, before Administrative Patent Judge Kalyan K. Deshpande, granted the motion and the confidentiality request, thereby terminating the proceeding without a final written decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Perfect Corporation vs Zugara, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. challenges MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s '438 Patent, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combining multiple prior art references (Takahashi, Mizuno, Notani) to demonstrate predictability in leakage reduction circuitry.
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over combinations with Hartley, Eller and Garrison. The decision hinges on the Board’s construction that the claimed filament must be flexible, which the prior art does not disclose.
Therabody, Inc.vsDataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody's Post-Grant Review petition against DataFeel was denied by the PTAB after failing to demonstrate a likelihood of unpatentability for claim 4. The Board rejected grounds based on obviousness (103) and lack of enablement/written description (112).
Zesty.ai, Inc.vsAon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,529,029, alleging obviousness over the Gross, Davis, and Furukawa references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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.