Executive Summary
Home Depot and RavenWhite Security settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,594,823. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after institution, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement confidential.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. vs RavenWhite Security, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsLS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
Amphenol CorporationvsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR challenge against Stellar, LLC's patent (10523901). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on all grounds, despite Patent Owner arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics argue the PTAB correctly instituted an IPR against Zaxcom and that the Board’s discretion was not abused, urging denial of the Patent Owner’s Director Review request.
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.