Apple Inc. v. ImberaTek, LLC

IPR2025-00583

Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision was made.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00583
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 against multiple patents owned by ImberaTek LLC. The patent owner did not respond, and before the Board could issue any institution decisions, the parties jointly filed motions to terminate the proceedings, citing a settlement agreement that resolved all disputes. The Board granted the motions, treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information, and dismissed all nine IPRs, effectively ending the litigation without a substantive patent validity 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

patentIPR2024-00749

Google LLCvsDialect LLC

Google filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR against Dialect’s in‑vehicle voice‑command patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread the Coffman prior art and ignored expert testimony.

patentIPR2025-00698

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al.vsFeit Electric Company, Inc.

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Feit Electric Company, Inc., challenging 14 claims of patent 8614539. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed LED device components are unpatentable over prior art combinations.

patentIPR2025-00994

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsW&Wsens Devices Inc.

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.

patentIPR2025-01124

Aerin Medical Inc.vsNeurent Medical Ltd. et al.

Aerin Medical has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Neurent’s ’262 patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering nasal neuromodulation technology.

patentIPR2025-00451

AT&T Services, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.

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