Executive Summary
The IPR was terminated after the parties settled following institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Zepp Health Corporation vs Slyde Analytics, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Padagis US LLC et al.vsNeurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC seeks IPR cancellation of Neurelis' 8,895,546 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al.vsCole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 contains the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, indicating the IPR has been resolved.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied iRhythm's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00378 and related cases, keeping Welch Allyn's patent intact. The decision rests on the Board's discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Curio Bioscience, Inc.vsPrognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
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.