Executive 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.
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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision in the Netlist memory‑module patent case, leaving the Board's ruling intact.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsWSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against WSOU Investments regarding network protection claims (8982691). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding that prior art references inherently disclose key claim limitations.
BPI Labs, LLC et al.vsEli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.
Apple Inc.vsVaria Holdings LLC
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found Varia’s RFID‑related claims obvious over Willgert‑Mooney, rejecting the patent owner’s construction and a Director Review request. The Board denied the request, leaving all 19 claims unpatentable.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the Director’s order that denied institution of an IPR against Mullen’s 2021 wireless‑technology patent. They argue the Director misapplied discretionary denial standards, ignored the Sotera stipulation, and retroactively applied policy changes. The petition asks the Board to reinstate the original institution decision.
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.