Short Summary
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR disputes with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the three pending reviews and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
Detailed Summary
In March 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a termination order for three inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00951, IPR2024-00985, IPR2024-00986) covering patents owned by Active Wireless Technologies LLC. Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation jointly moved to terminate the proceedings after reaching a settlement with the patent owner. The Board granted the joint motions under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) because the merits had not yet been decided, and also ordered the settlement agreements to be treated as business‑confidential information under § 317(b). No claim constructions or unpatentability findings were made.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ericsson Inc. et al. vs Active Wireless Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘370 hybrid NAND‑flash patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The petition targets claims 1‑18 and seeks cancellation under §§ 112(a), 112(b), 103 and 101. Institution of the review is pending.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect Holdings’ request for review of a prior discretionary denial. Ford relies on long‑standing settled expectations from its relationship with Flextronics and AutoConnect’s lapse of maintenance fees to argue the request should be denied.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested Director Review of two IPRs (2025‑01486 and 2025‑01488) against HBCU Messaging’s patent 8,918,127. The patent owner may submit a limited 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLCvsSonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
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.