Executive Summary
Hulu and Capital One settled their dispute with patent owner Implicit over U.S. Patent 8,056,075 B2. The PTAB granted a motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Capital One, National Association et al. vs -- is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB notified Samsung Display and Pictiva that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-01094 concerning patent 8,558,223. The petitioner may submit a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the Petitioner's arguments of obviousness against 21 claims related to video stabilization and motion blur compensation. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'low-light high-pass parameter,' finding that the prior art did not disclose this specific functional element.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al.vsEye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
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.