Short Summary
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00878 concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,774,740, Capital One, National Association submitted an unopposed motion to terminate the inter partes review and to have the settlement agreement with Implicit, LLC treated as business confidential information. Citing 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), the petitioner argues that the settlement is timely filed, the patent owner has not appeared, and confidentiality is warranted. The motion includes a confidential exhibit of the settlement and requests that it be kept separate from the public patent file, available only to government agencies or parties showing good cause.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Capital One, National Association vs -- is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR on the ’450 instant‑messaging patent. Apple argues the denial was premature and inefficient, especially given related petitions now referred. The request asks the Board to vacate the denial and institute the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
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.