Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In a termination decision dated November 26, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a joint motion by Koki Holdings America Ltd. and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc. to end four inter partes review proceedings (IPR2025‑00261 through IPR2025‑00264) covering patents related to cutting‑tool technology. The parties reported that they had resolved all outstanding disputes through a confidential settlement agreement, which the Board treated as business‑confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Accordingly, the Board ordered the termination of the IPRs and the confidential handling of the settlement documents.
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
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo challenged claims related to cyclic advancement in OFDM systems, arguing that the claimed novelty is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that 'cyclic advancement' is merely a predictable equivalent of known techniques found in prior art references like Dammann and Hervin.
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Miracor’s LVAD patent (US 11,754,077). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the petition is not barred. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Radian's ’614 SSD storage patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. §311.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review for several IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 8738740. The Patent Owner must respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLCvsSANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
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.