Litigation

Apple, Inc. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd

Final Written Decision

IPR2022-00600

Auto-generating section 1 of 4: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Filed: 2022-02-23

Patents at issue (1)

8620039 PTAB: claims sustained

Plaintiffs (1)

π Apple, Inc.

Defendants (1)

Δ CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd

Summary

An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Apple, Inc. challenging the validity of patent 8620039, resulting in a final written decision.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 8620039-ipr2022-00600 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Finding prior art with free tools: Google Patents, Lens, Espacenet, and more
A serious paid prior-art search costs $5,000 to $20,000. The first 80% of what you'd find is sitting behind free tools — if you know how to drive them.
The patent litigation lifecycle
Most patent cases never reach trial. A defendant who understands the lifecycle makes better decisions about when to fight, when to settle, and when to invest in IPR — instead of overspending on whatever phase they happen to be in.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool
File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.

All resources →