Short Summary
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01267 concerning U.S. Patent 11,126,025 B2, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and Paneltouch Technologies LLC jointly filed motions to terminate the inter partes review after reaching a settlement and license agreement. The Board, citing good cause and the confidential nature of the agreement, granted the motions, ordered the termination of the IPRs, and required the settlement documents to be kept separate from the patent file under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The order does not constitute a final written decision on patentability.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. vs Paneltouch Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Massively Broadband’s UWB repeater patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a single device capturing both location and time data, violating the particularity requirement. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
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.