Executive Summary
JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept 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 JACS Solutions, Inc. vs Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon and its affiliates settled an inter partes review against NL Giken’s patent 9,319,615. The Board terminated the proceeding, treating the settlement as confidential.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR before the Board institutes trial, citing the early stage of the proceeding and prior Board practice of granting such terminations.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
International Business Machines Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 79 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Hwang and other references, and urging the Board to deny any discretionary denial.
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.