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

patentIPR2025-00366

Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC

The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).

patentIPR2026-00100

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC

The USPTO Director issued a partial Institution Decision for multiple IPRs, granting review in five proceedings while denying it in four others based on the likelihood of prevailing.

patentIPR2024-01070

Luxottica of America Inc. et al.vsE-Vision Optics, LLC

The PTAB found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for a majority of challenged claims (Claims 1–9 and 12–19) based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board relied heavily on prior art references, notably Brunton, to establish these findings in the field of smart eyeglasses electronics integration.

patentIPR2025-01023

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED

CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.

patentPGR2025-00040

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.vsSciencons AS et al.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.

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