Executive Summary
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision was made.
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
Silicon Motion Inc. et al.vsK. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against K. Mizra LLC's patent, arguing that the technology for high-speed digital communication channel calibration was obvious over various prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB instituted trial on all 17 claims of patent 11415760, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for many claims over Raven and Kuffel. The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of 'slidably received,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow interpretation.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al.vsKyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00262 concerning U.S. Patent 10,478,954, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of its petition. The petition relies on the strong prior art reference WO 02/49343 A1 (“Leaning”).
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.