Short Summary
Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01052 concerning U.S. Patent 9,905,691 B2, Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. and Globalfoundries, Inc. moved to terminate the proceeding after reaching a settlement with patent owner OAK IP LLC. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that no trial had been instituted and, citing 35 U.S.C. §317 and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c), granted the joint motion to terminate and to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information. The case was thus closed without any claim constructions or unpatentability findings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. vs OAK IP LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
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.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTDvsThe Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology filed an IPR challenging The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets all 24 claims using extensive prior art combinations involving references like Kane, Beckley, and Minn.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, leading to a decision that found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board adopted key claim constructions and accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries regarding patent 11246024. The denial affirms the initial decision not to institute trial.
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.