Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

IPR2024-01507

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially treated the settlement documents as confidential.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01507
Judge(s)
Jameson Lee, Steven M. Amundson, Jason M. Repko
Decision Date
18 October 2024

Detailed Summary

In IPR2024-01507, Amazon.com, Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy reached a settlement concerning U.S. Patent 8,996,693 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, and the PTAB granted the motion, citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a) because the merits had not yet been decided. The Board also partially granted a request to keep the settlement agreement and related patent agreement confidential under §317(b), while denying a request for a procedural notification requirement not supported by statute. The proceeding was thus terminated, and the confidential documents will be kept separate from the patent file.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amazon.com, Inc. et al. vs Nokia Technologies Oy is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00267

Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation

Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.

patentIPR2024-01123

Nike, Inc.vsSherryWear, LLC

Nike successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge SherryWear's apparel patent, leading the Board to institute proceedings on obviousness grounds. The decision focuses on whether combinations of prior art references teach or suggest the claimed design elements in intimate apparel.

patentIPR2025-01473

Atrius Development Group Corp.vsABC IP, LLC et al.

A settlement agreement between the U.S. government and a group of gun‑rights claimants resolves three pending federal lawsuits over forced‑reset triggers. The parties dismiss the cases, return seized devices, and release each other from future claims, while agreeing not to enforce certain firearm statutes against the claimants.

patentIPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.

patentPGR2025-00059

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.

GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.

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