Apple Inc. v. ImberaTek, LLC

IPR2025-00578

Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate nine IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00578
Judge(s)
Kristen L. Droesch, Kevin W. Cherry, Monica S. Ullagaddi
Decision Date
2 June 2025

Detailed Summary

In June 2025, Apple Inc. filed petitions for inter partes review of nine patents owned by ImberaTek, LLC. The patent owner did not respond, and before the Board could issue any institution decisions, the parties executed a settlement agreement covering all disputes. The Board, citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, granted the joint motions to terminate each proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be treated as business confidential information, keeping them separate from the patent files. No claim constructions or unpatentability findings were made, and the proceedings were dismissed in their entirety.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs ImberaTek, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00274

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its subsidiaries filed a joint motion with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement with BirchTech Corp. confidential and to terminate the IPR proceeding for MidAmerican Energy.

patentIPR2025-00575

Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,609,527 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

patentIPR2025-01562

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering hemostasis valves. All nine claims are under review based on anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on the Schaffer reference and related prior art.

patentPGR2025-00004

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.

Merck challenges Halozyme’s request for Director review after the PTAB instituted a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,018,298 covering modified PH20 polypeptides. Merck argues the eligibility and claim‑construction issues are meritless and that the Fintiv factors favor institution.

patentIPR2026-00056

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Guides Inc.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 10,165,324. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that those references were never considered during prosecution.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call