Executive Summary
Kyocera and Koki Holdings settled their dispute over four industrial‑tool patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. vs Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com Services LLCvsSmart Speaker LLC
The document lists PTAB institution decisions for multiple IPRs, but does not provide a decision for IPR2026-00146.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd.vs--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ‘701 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art trading systems (Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, Davidowitz).
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery opposes Ningde Amperex’s request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that no reversible error exists. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references that render all claims likely unpatentable.
Apple Inc.vsVaria Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 16 claims in a dispute involving Stratasys's 3D printing technology. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art, specifically Warren.
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.