Olympus Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd.

I'll research this matter, starting with the PTAB docket and any parallel district court litigation.

Now let me verify the patent, the parallel district court cases, and the IPR family details.

Important framing note

IPR2018‑00906 is not itself an infringement suit — it is an inter partes review at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in which Olympus was the petitioner and Maxell the patent owner. It was one of six parallel Olympus IPRs filed on the same day (May 18, 2018) against Maxell camera/digital‑imaging patents, and it sits on top of a real infringement/DJ fight in the District of Delaware (Olympus Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd., C.A. No. 18‑216‑MN‑SRF; and Maxell, Ltd. v. Olympus Corp., C.A. No. 18‑310‑JFB‑SRF). Below I describe the IPR and then the underlying litigation, since the "parties, accused products and venue" questions live mostly in Delaware.

Parties and what they do

Olympus Corporation (Shinjuku, Tokyo) is a Japanese optics/electronics and medical‑imaging manufacturer — endoscopes and medical systems, microscopes, and (at the time) the OM‑D, PEN and Tough consumer camera lines; it acted through Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Olympus America Inc. (Center Valley, PA). Olympus was represented before the Board by Perkins Coie (William J. McCabe, Matthew J. Moffa) with Shaw Keller as Delaware counsel. Maxell, Ltd. (Oyamazaki, Kyoto), formerly Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., is a genuine operating manufacturer — storage media, optical discs, batteries, projectors, lenses, wireless charging — but by 2017–18 it was also running a large licensing/assertion program built on patents it inherited through Hitachi's corporate reshuffling (Hitachi → Hitachi Consumer Electronics in 2009 → Hitachi Maxell in 2013 → Maxell). It is therefore best characterized as a hybrid operating company/patent licensor, not a classic university or shell NPE, though its assertion posture in this period drew PAE‑style comparisons. Maxell used Mayer Brown (Robert G. Pluta, Michael Word, Saqib Siddiqui) with Devlin Law Firm as local counsel.

The patent and the accused technology

The sole patent in IPR2018‑00906 is U.S. Patent No. 7,995,897 B2, "Video recording and reproducing method, and video reproducing apparatus and method," issued August 9, 2011 to Masaru Takahashi and Junji Shiokawa, claiming priority to JP 11‑189868 (1999) and sitting in a continuation chain 6,424,795 → 7,457,529 → 7,995,897 → 9,451,229 (and later 10,349,030). In one line: a camera/player that records MPEG moving pictures and JPEG still pictures together with low‑resolution thumbnails, where a still picture is stored in two encodings (the moving‑picture format so a video player can read it, and JPEG so a PC can) and the moving‑ and still‑picture thumbnails share a common encoding. Olympus challenged claims 1–12. The petition relied principally on JP 10‑108133 (Ishikawa), JP 10‑164483 (Takaichi) and U.S. 6,370,274 (Peters), with grounds including anticipation by Ishikawa and obviousness combinations of Takaichi with Ishikawa and with Peters, supported by an expert declaration from Dr. Majid Rabbani (Ex. 1006). Because the proceeding was dismissed pre‑institution, no product was ever formally "accused" in the IPR; the real‑world targets were smartphones whose camera/gallery software stores MPEG‑4 video and JPEG stills with thumbnails — Maxell asserted the '897 patent (typically claim 10) against BlackBerry (D. Del. 17‑1446) and Blu Products (D. Del. 17‑1447), and later against Huawei (Mate 10, E.D. Tex. 5:18‑cv‑033), ZTE (Axon 7, 5:18‑cv‑034), ASUSTek (5:18‑cv‑136) and Blu (S.D. Fla. 1:18‑cv‑21231).

Procedural posture

Before the Board, the case was assigned to a panel including AP

I'll research the PTAB docket and the underlying Delaware litigation track in parallel.

Now let me pin down the Delaware docket specifics and the Maxell side of the case.

Let me verify the '897 patent's IPR history, the IPR2018-00906 docket papers, and whether any stay motion was filed in Delaware.

Key legal developments & outcome (chronological)

A threshold point that shapes everything below: the case number in the metadata (IPR2018‑00906) is a PTAB proceeding, not a civil action, so there is no complaint, Markman, trial, or verdict in that docket. The "litigation" events the task asks about occurred in the two Delaware actions that the IPR wave was designed to influence. I therefore track both threads side by side and flag where I could not confirm a fact.

Thread A — The Delaware litigation

2018‑02‑06 — Olympus files first (DJ action). Olympus Corp. and Olympus America Inc. filed a declaratory‑judgment complaint, Olympus Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd., C.A. No. 1:18‑cv‑00216 (D. Del.) (D.I. 1). Five Maxell patents were put at issue: U.S. 6,765,616; 7,199,821; 7,551,209; 8,130,284; and 9,451,229 (the child of the '897 patent). Accused products named by Olympus: OM‑D E‑M1 Mark II, E‑M5 Mark II, E‑M10 Mark II, Pen‑F, Pen E‑PL8, Tough TG‑4, and Air A01. The DJ hook was Maxell's 2017‑05‑17 letter and its October 2017 suits against BlackBerry and Blu. Note the strategic significance: Olympus sued for a declaration that the '229 patent was not infringed, expressly identifying the '897 — "not identified in this complaint, but to which the '229 Patent is related" — as the parent. (D.I. 1 complaint)

2018‑02‑14 — Referral. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon (D. Neb., sitting by designation in lieu of the vacant Delaware seat) entered an oral order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon for all matters including claim construction, except summary judgment, Daubert, and motions in limine (D.I. 6). Same order entered in the second‑filed case. (Justia docket)

2018‑02‑23 — Maxell counter‑punches with an infringement suit. Maxell, Ltd. v. Olympus Corp., C.A. No. 1:18‑cv‑00310‑JFB‑SRF (D.I. 1), asserting ten patents from the Hitachi‑inherited camera portfolio (including the '616, '821, '209, '284, '177, '604, and '529). Olympus America was served 2018‑02‑26. (Justia docket)

2018‑03‑27/28 — Consolidated scheduling order governing discovery and Markman in both associated cases (D.I. 8 in 18‑216; D.I. 9 in 18‑310). Answers were extended by joint stipulation to 2018‑04‑27.

2018‑04‑27 — Answer and counterclaims (the pivotal pleading). Maxell answered in 18‑216 and asserted counterclaims on the '616, '821, '209, and '284 patents, plus six more patents: U.S. 8,059,177; 9,100,604; 8,599,244; 8,417,088; 7,457,529; and U.S. 8,478,102 (the "Information Recording/Play‑Backing Apparatus" patent). This is the moment the case became a ten‑patent, two‑front war and triggered the six‑petition IPR wave. (Opinion at 1–2, 18‑216.pdf)

2018‑05‑18 — Olympus answers the counterclaims (D.I. 16, 17) — the same day it filed the IPR petitions. This is the single most notable coordination point in the record: petition filing and counterclaim answer on the same date, comfortably inside the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one‑year bar (service 2018‑02‑26 → bar 2019‑02‑26).

2018‑07‑02/07 — Olympus moves for judgment on the pleadings on the '102 patent. D.I. 18 (motion), D.I. 19 (brief, dated 2018‑07‑02, filed 2018‑07‑07), arguing claims 1–5 of the '102 patent were directed to the abstract idea of "conserving limited resources"/"conserving battery power," with no inventive concept at Alice step two, and that no claim construction or factual dispute stood in the way. Maxell opposed (D.I. 25).

2018‑11‑14 — Opinion: motion denied. Judge Maryellen Noreika (the case having been reassigned to her after she took the bench) held the '102 claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a specific technology — a dual‑medium recording/play‑back camera with a controller that suppresses power to one medium depending on imaging vs. dubbing mode — not to an abstract idea, and therefore eligible at Alice step one without reaching step two. (Slip op.; [IP Law Daily summary, 2018‑11‑15](https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-d-del-claims-for-camera-recording%2Fplay-back-apparatus-directed-to-specific-improvements-not-abstract-idea/ipm013edaa2987d2910009209

I'll search for press coverage of this IPR and the related Maxell–Olympus matters.

Let me dig into the IPWatchdog article and search additional angles for coverage.

Now let me check whether the 2020 IPWatchdog piece mentions Olympus at all beyond a passing list, and look for other coverage of the Maxell–Olympus dispute.

Press coverage of IPR2018‑00906 and the Maxell–Olympus dispute

Bottom line: there is essentially no press coverage of IPR2018‑00906 itself. Searches across the case caption, the party names, the '897 patent number, and the settlement event returned no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, or Patently‑O article on the Olympus IPR wave. That is unsurprising and is itself a function of the record: the petitions were dismissed before institution (Paper 9, Dec. 26, 2018), and the parties' agreement was filed as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and kept separate from the patent file — the same treatment the Board gave the parallel '088 proceeding, where the executed agreement was filed as confidential Exhibit 1010 (PTAB termination order, IPR2018‑00907). Because the terms were sealed and the Delaware cases were resolved by a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in which "[e]ach party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees" (stipulation to dismiss, D. Del. 18‑216, dated Dec. 18, 2018), no outlet has ever reported a settlement figure, damages demand, or royalty rate for this matter — and any secondary source that purports to state one is not drawing on the public record.

The one article supplied in the index does not actually discuss this case. IPWatchdog (Jonathan Stroud's "Patent Filings Roundup," Aug. 19, 2020) is about the Board's Fintiv/NHK Spring discretionary denials of Apple's IPR2020‑00407, ‑00408 and ‑00409 against three Maxell patents (the '317, '498 and '999), where Judge Gilstrap had set a December 2020 trial date and refused a stay; its PTAB table lists only those three Apple petitions. Olympus appears in the piece exactly once, in a list of entities Maxell had sued over the years — "Fandango, Blackberry, BLU, CinemaNow, ASUSTek, Olympus, ZTE, and Hisense" — with no mention of the '897 patent, IPR2018‑00906, or the 2018 settlement. Its value here is as a third‑party characterization of Maxell's assertion posture (a Hitachi‑derived portfolio being monetized against consumer‑electronics defendants, with the Board in 2020 crediting parallel district court schedules over Maxell's challengers), not as reporting on the Olympus proceeding.

The genuine legal‑press coverage sits on the Delaware track, and it covers one ruling — not the IPRs. Bloomberg Law's IP Law Daily reported on 2018‑11‑15 that Judge Noreika denied Olympus's Rule 12(c) motion against Maxell's U.S. 8,478,102 patent, holding claims 1–5 directed to "an improvement in the functioning of a specific technology" rather than the abstract idea of conserving resources or battery life, and noting that Maxell had asserted counterclaims on ten patents including the '102. Delaware Business Court Insider carried the same ruling as a case digest published 2018‑11‑28, with the full appearance list (Shaw Keller and Perkins Coie for Olympus; Devlin Law Firm and Mayer Brown for Maxell). Notably, both pieces were published in the same window in which the parties were already winding the dispute down — Olympus moved to dismiss the PTAB proceedings on Nov. 28, 2018, and the Delaware stipulation followed on Dec. 18, 2018 — yet neither outlet reported the settlement or connected the § 101 ruling to the parallel IPR campaign.

Where accounts differ, and what remains unsourced. The press record and the litigation record diverge mainly by omission rather than contradiction: IPWatchdog in 2020 still presents Maxell's campaigns as an unbroken litany of complaints, without noting that the Olympus strand had ended in a confidential 2018 deal and a dismissal with prejudice; the two Nov. 2018 items present a merits ruling without the strategic context of six co-pending IPRs. Beyond that, the coverage is thin in a way worth flagging for the file: Law360's Maxell archive concerns later campaigns (its 2025 reports on Samsung's mixed PTAB results and the vacated $112 million jury verdict), not Olympus, and no outlet is known to have interviewed Olympus or Maxell executives about this dispute, so there are no executive statements or analyst takes to report. Two sourcing cautions for anyone chasing "press-like" summaries: aggregator pages conflate the six May/June 2018 Olympus petitions (Patexia indexes the family under IPR2018‑00904), and freely circulating "Olympus–Maxell" petition PDFs sometimes belong to sibling patents (e.g., the '760 patent, claims 1–15) rather than the '897 patent at issue here.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Delaware Business Court Case Digests - Case Digests
• Search | Delaware Business Court Insider - Case Digests
• Olympus Corporation et al v. Maxell, Ltd. - This case was last updated from U
• Maxell, Ltd. v. Olympus Corporation et al - This case was last updated from U
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• Olympus Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. - From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
• OLYMPUS CORPORATION and OLYMPUS AMERICA INC. V. MAXELL, LTD. | District of Delaware
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Olympus Corporation et al v. Maxell, Ltd., No. 1:2018cv00216 - Document 54 (D. Del. 2018) - Olympus Corporation et al v. Maxell, Ltd., No. 1:2018cv00216 - Document 54 (D. Del. 2018)
• Jonathan Stroud - District court patent filings and filings with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were relatively subdued this week, with ...
• Patent Filings Roundup: WSOU Targets Hewlett-Packard Inc., HPE; PTAB Skips Maxell IPRs; Drone Maker Files Against Daedalus Blue - Patent Filings Roundup: WSOU Targets Hewlett-Packard Inc., HPE; PTAB Skips Maxell IPRs; Drone Maker Files Against Daedalus Blue

I'll verify the counsel of record for the petitioner in IPR2018‑00906 and the related Delaware pleadings.

Counsel of record for the plaintiff-side party (i.e., the Petitioner) in IPR2018‑00906

Threshold point on framing. IPR2018‑00906 has no "plaintiff" in the Rule 7.1 sense. The petitioning side — the party whose counsel the request is aimed at — is the Olympus group: Olympus Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Olympus America Inc. (captioned "Olympus Corporation et al."). The Board's papers in this file identify exactly two attorneys of record for that side, both at Perkins Coie. There is no local counsel of record at the PTAB (Shaw Keller appears only in the Delaware actions — see below), and no in-house attorney appears on the PTAB docket.

Table — Petitioner's counsel of record, IPR2018‑00906

That is the complete list. Confirming sources:

• IPR2018‑00906, Paper 9, Order Granting Petitioner's Authorized Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Proceeding; Granting Authorized Joint Request to File Agreement as Business Confidential Information (Dec. 26, 2018) — a single order entered in IPR2018‑00904, ‑00906, ‑00908, ‑00909, ‑00910 and ‑00911 — carries the Petitioner's signature block as "William McCabe / Matthew Moffa / wmccabe@perkinscoie.com / mmoffa@perkinscoie.com." (copy filed in IPR2018‑00910)
• The Petitioner's Power of Attorney filed May 18, 2018 in the companion petitions, and the certificate of service on Patent Owner's POA in IPR2018‑00907, list "Lead Counsel — William J. McCabe (Reg. No. 33,536), Perkins Coie LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10112" and "Back-Up Counsel — Matthew J. Moffa (Reg. No. …)," with service to Robert G. Pluta, Michael J. Word and Saqib J. Siddiqui of Mayer Brown. (IPR2018‑00907 POA service certificate)
• IPR2018‑00905, Petitioner's Request for Refund of Post‑Institution Fees (Jan. 30, 2019), signed "/Matthew J. Moffa/ Lead Counsel," with "William J. McCabe, Reg. No. 33,536, Back-Up Counsel," Perkins Coie LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York — showing the lead/back-up designation flipped within the family after the December 2018 dismissals. (PTAB filing)
• A contemporaneous expert declaration in the same family describes "four petitions from Olympus Corporation filed by William McCabe and Matthew Moffa of Perkins Coie" for IPRs of U.S. Patents 8,059,177, 8,339,493 and 9,100,604, and confirms the December 2018 settlement — consistent with the docket. (PTAB exhibit)
• Third-party PTAB trackers likewise record only "William McCabe" as petitioner counsel and "Robert Pluta" as patent owner counsel for IPR2018‑00906. (GreyB IPVerse)

Caveats and things I could not verify

1. I have not seen the IPR2018‑00906 "Petitioner's Power of Attorney" itself (filed May 18, 2018). My confirmation of the McCabe/Moffa designation comes from the identical papers in the sibling petitions (‑00905, ‑00907) and from the Board's own termination order in this file. Given the common panel and common filing date, there is no reason to think ‑00906 differs, but I am flagging the inferential step rather than asserting I read the ‑00906 POA.
2. Two Perkins Coie attorneys who appear for Olympus in Delaware do not appear on the PTAB papers in ‑00906: Thomas V. Matthew (Perkins Coie, New York) and Kyle R. Canavera (Perkins Coie, San Diego). Both were admitted pro hac vice / listed for plaintiffs in Olympus Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd., D. Del. No. 1:18‑cv‑00216 (D.I. 5, PHV motion for McCabe, Moffa and Matthew, granted Feb. 14, 2018; Canavera listed in the November 2018 case digest). Their absence from ‑00906 is unsurprising — the IPR was dismissed pre‑institution and the PTAB file is thin (petition, POA, exhibits, termination order).
3. Delaware local counsel (Shaw Keller LLP — John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan R. Hoeschen) is not counsel of record in the IPR. They appear only in D. Del. 1:18‑cv‑00216 (Olympus as plaintiff/DJ plaintiff) and, on the defense side, in 1:18‑cv‑00310 (Maxell v. Olympus). The PTAB does not require local counsel, and none was designated here.
4. No in-house counsel of record. Nothing on the PTAB docket identifies an Olympus legal-department attorney appearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10; the only signature authority reflected is the corporate POA.
5. Not counsel, for avoidance of confusion: Dr. Majid Rabbani appears prominently in this file as Olympus's expert (Ex. 1006, Rabbani Declaration with Appendices A–L and M–Z). He is a retained expert witness, not an attorney of record.

Experience notes (sourced, with limits)

• McCabe — registered practitioner (Reg. No. 33,536) and the Perkins Coie relationship partner for the Olympus–Maxell campaign: lead counsel on the six-petition IPR family filed May 18, 2018 against Maxell's camera/digital‑imaging patents, and Olympus's pro hac vice counsel in the Delaware DJ action. I did not locate a public firm bio page in this search, so I am not asserting a broader case list for him.
• Moffa — registered practitioner (Reg. No. 58,860), same role; he was the attorney still prosecuting the family's post‑dismissal housekeeping (fee refund requests) in January 2019, which is why he signs as lead in those papers. Beyond the Olympus–Maxell matters I have no independently verified case list for him from these searches.

If you need the Delaware counsel list for the mirror-image case where Olympus is the defendant (Maxell, Ltd. v. Olympus Corp., D. Del. 1:18‑cv‑00310) — i.e., who defended Olympus against Maxell's infringement claims — that is a different set of appearances and I can pull it separately.

I'll research the PTAB docket for IPR2018‑00906 and the parallel Delaware litigation to identify counsel of record for Maxell, Ltd. (the patent owner/respondent in the IPR and defendant in the mirror-image Delaware actions).

Key docket detail found — the termination order lists the parties' counsel. Now let me confirm the IPR2018‑00906 docket papers (power of attorney, mandatory notices) and the Delaware defense team.

Threshold point: there is no "defendant" in an IPR

Before naming anyone, one correction to the task framing. IPR2018‑00906 is a PTAB proceeding, not an infringement case. The parties are Petitioner (Olympus Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Olympus America Inc.) and Patent Owner (Maxell, Ltd., f/k/a Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.). Maxell is the respondent — the functional "defendant" — and it is the only party on that side. No products are accused in the IPR itself.

The actual infringement/declaratory‑judgment fight sits in Delaware: Olympus Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd., C.A. No. 18‑216‑JFB‑SRF (Maxell is the defendant there) and Maxell, Ltd. v. Olympus Corp., C.A. No. 18‑310‑JFB‑SRF (Maxell is plaintiff). Because the question asks about "counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case," I give both sets below — the PTAB respondent's counsel, and Maxell's Delaware defense team.

---

1. Counsel of record for Maxell, Ltd. in IPR2018‑00906 (PTAB)

Maxell's PTAB representation was Mayer Brown LLP, appointed by power of attorney under Customer No. 26565 (executed June 1, 2018 and filed June 6, 2018 in the companion Olympus IPRs; same appointment pattern across the Olympus–Maxell IPR family). The Board's Termination Order of Dec. 26, 2018 (Paper 9) — which dismissed IPR2018‑00904, ‑00906, ‑00908, ‑00909, ‑00910 and ‑00911 with prejudice after the parties' Patent License Agreement — carries the service list naming these attorneys as counsel for Patent Owner.

Not counsel of record in the IPR: the Devlin Law Firm (Timothy Devlin, James Gorman) handled Maxell's Delaware local‑counsel role but did not enter an appearance at the PTAB — the Board does not require local counsel. Anyone listing Devlin as IPR counsel for '906 would be conflating the two dockets.

In‑house counsel: no Maxell in‑house attorney appears as counsel of record. The POAs in this IPR family were signed by a Maxell officer — Tatsuya Yamamoto executed the corresponding power of attorney in the companion IPR2018‑00907 (dated June 1, 2018); I could not verify the '906 signatory specifically from the public record.

Panel: APJs Lynne E. Pettigrew, Minn Chung, Terrence W. McMillin, and John A. Hudalla.

Sourcing caveat: the Patent Owner's power of attorney and mandatory notice for '906 itself are not separately retrievable in the free mirrors I could reach; my identification rests on (a) the Board's Dec. 26, 2018 Termination Order service list naming Pluta, Word and Siddiqui for Maxell in '906, (b) the identical Mayer Brown appointment in the sister '907 POA, and (c) Word's and GreyB/IPVerse's counsel records. That is strong but not the same as a page‑and‑line cite to a '906 POA.

---

2. Maxell's counsel in the Delaware infringement action (the true "defendant" side)

Per the Delaware Business Court Insider case digest for Olympus Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (D. Del., Nov. 2018 — the § 101 opinion denying Olympus's Rule 12(c) motion against the '102 patent):

Local counsel — Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE

• Timothy Devlin — local/lead Delaware counsel; entered appearance April 2, 2018 (D.I. 9, substituting for Benjamin J. Schladweiler of Potter Anderson); a prolific Delaware patent litigator.
• James Gorman — Devlin Law Firm, Wilmington; local counsel.

Lead trial counsel — Mayer Brown LLP

• Robert G. Pluta — Chicago (as above).
• Jamie B. Beaber — Washington, DC; Mayer Brown's Maxell enforcement team.
• Kfir B. Levy — Washington, DC.
• James A. Fussell, III — Washington, DC.
• Tiffany A. Miller — Washington, DC.
• Baldine B. Paul, PhD — Washington, DC; her bio lists Olympus Corp. and Olympus America Inc. v. Maxell (D. Del. 1:18‑cv‑00216), "representing defendant Maxell," plus Maxell v. ZTE, Huawei, ASUS and BLU; Ph.D. in electrical engineering (Georgia Tech).
• Alison T. Gelsleichter — Washington, DC.

(For the mirror case Maxell v. Olympus, C.A. No. 18‑310, Maxell's pro hac vice roster was broader — adding Amanda S. Bonner, Bryan C. Nese, Michael L. Lindinger, Ilhwan "Justin" Park, and William J. Barrow — but there Maxell was plaintiff, not defendant.)

---

3. Practical takeaways

1. One firm, one lead: Mayer Brown's Robert Pluta was the single constant across every Maxell appearance touching the '897 patent — the Olympus '906 IPR, Maxell's Delaware defense, and the later BlackBerry and Huawei IPRs on the same patent. If you need "the" defense-side name for this matter, it is Pluta.
2. The team has since dispersed: Michael Word is now at Dykema; any current contact should be verified against firm directories rather than the 2018 docket.
3. Nothing was litigated on the merits — the proceeding was dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 26, 2018 before institution, so there are no depositions, expert reports, or POPR briefing from Maxell's side that would reveal additional counsel.
4. No sealed/sealed-adjacent gap to flag beyond the settlement agreement, which the Board ordered kept business confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and separate from the patent files (Ex. 1018).