Apple Inc. v. ImberaTek, LLC

IPR2025-00582

Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes over nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00582
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 challenging nine patents owned by ImberaTek, LLC. The patent owner did not respond, and before the Board could issue any institution decisions, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement covering all the patents. They jointly filed motions to terminate the IPRs and to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information. The PTAB granted the motions, dismissed all petitions, and ordered the agreement to be kept separate from the patent files, effectively ending the proceedings without a substantive patentability determination.

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

patentIPR2025-00245

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Micron Technology against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory device patents. The Board found the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references.

patentIPR2026-00289

Google LLCvsAccuSearch Technologies LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patentIPR2025-00744

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC

Meta Platforms initiated an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering Augmented Reality systems and Head-Mounted Displays. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim based on obviousness over Fager and Martins.

patentIPR2025-01108

Element TV Company, LP et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Nokia and Element TV have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before it was instituted.

patentIPR2025-01020

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 ‘969 Patent covering an intraoral device with mesh. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness of the claims based on earlier dental mouthpiece patents.

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