Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-01316 concerning U.S. Patent 10,594,823, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. challenged ten claims asserted by RavenWhite Security, Inc. After the Board instituted the review on March 24, 2025, the parties executed a confidential settlement agreement that fully resolved the dispute. Both parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR and to keep the settlement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the joint motions, terminating the proceeding without a final written decision and preserving the confidentiality of the settlement documents.
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
Ubiquiti Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC submits an authorized response urging the Director to deny Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,198,686. The response rebuts the petitioner’s arguments on national security, settled expectations, duplication, and examiner error.
Intel Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have settled with Advanced Cluster Systems and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, keeping it separate from the public patent file.
Coretronic CorporationvsMaxell, Ltd.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Maxell’s 9,322,530 patent covering a projection‑type light source device. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
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.