# If the settlement mentions it, file it. DTN and Farms Technology settled two IPRs and tried to keep two side agreements out of the record. The patent owner hadn’t signed either, and neither depended on ending the cases. The Board’s answer, now precedential: “any” means “any.” Confidential filing was available, and granted. Sources checked October 16, 2026 **2 of 2** side agreements had to be filed in DTN, though the patent owner signed neither. ## Before you read An IPR settlement refers to a supply agreement the patent owner didn’t sign. Does the supply agreement have to be filed with the Office? - No: the owner isn’t a party to it - Only if it depends on ending the IPR - Yes, if the settlement refers to it Yes. In DTN (precedential), collateral agreements “need only be ‘referred to’ in the Settlement Agreement” to be covered by § 317(b). ## “Any” means “any” DTN and Farms Technology settled two IPRs and filed their settlement agreement, as the statute requires. The agreement referred to two other agreements. The parties asked to expunge those from the record. The patent owner wasn’t a party to either, they said, and neither depended on ending the IPRs. The Board denied both requests. DTN, pp. 4–12 ## What the statute requires An IPR can be ended by settlement before the Board decides the merits. The settlement must be filed: “Any agreement or understanding between the patent owner and a petitioner, including any collateral agreements referred to in such agreement or understanding, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of an inter partes review under this section shall be in writing and a true copy … filed in the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)–(b) A collateral agreement is a side deal, such as a license, supply contract or covenant, that sits alongside the main settlement. A true copy is a complete and accurate one. Test yourself. Each card describes an agreement; tap to see whether DTN requires filing it. ## Two arguments that failed The Board denied the motions to expunge, granted the joint requests to treat the agreements as confidential, and terminated both IPRs. DTN ## Confidential, not secret Confidential treatment comes from the statute. On request, a filed agreement “shall be treated as business confidential information, shall be kept separate from the file of the involved patents, and shall be made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) Deleting a reference is not a substitute for complying. The documents filed have to reflect the actual settlement arrangement. ## Settling with an amendment pending Kokusai v. ASM, an informative 2019 decision, shows a related limit. The parties settled while the owner’s unopposed motion to amend was pending, and asked the Board to grant it in part. Kokusai, pp. 3–6 ## What to do Choose your side. ## Cuts the other way Both decisions date from 2019. DTN’s facts involved side agreements the patent owner hadn’t signed; its holding is broad, but it was applied to those facts. And settlements are a smaller share of how IPRs end than they were. ## The takeaway Put disclosure in the closing plan. The deal can be done while the Office filing is still incomplete. ## Related stories - [Fewer IPRs are ending in settlement.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/t10-fewer-iprs-are-ending-in-settlement) - [The rule changed, and Hunting Titan went with it.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d15-the-rule-changed-and-hunting-titan-went-with-it) - [Give up the claims, and the review never starts.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d11-give-up-the-claims) ## Sources - S31. DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC, No. IPR2018-01412, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. June 14, 2019) (precedential). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DTN%2C%20LLC%20v.%20Farms%20Tech.%2C%20LLC%2C%20IPR2018-01412%20%28Paper%2021%29.pdf - S33. Kokusai Electric Corporation v. ASM IP Holding B.V., No. IPR2018-01151, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. August 20, 2019) (informative). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Kokusai%20Electric%20Corp.%20v.%20ASM%20IP%20Holding%20B.V.%2C%20IPR2018-01151%20%28Paper%2038%29.pdf - S13. Federal patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 303(a), 311–315, 317 and 321–325. Reproduced in MPEP Appendix L (currency date stated by the appendix: Jan. 31, 2024). https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html - S48. USPTO, PTAB Trial Statistics, September 2026 (FY2026: Oct. 1, 2025 to Sept. 30, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial_stats_september2026.pdf - S49. USPTO, PTAB Trial Statistics, August 2026 (settlements slide, FY2022 to FY2026 year to date). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial_stats_august_2026.pdf Precedential decisions bind the Board within their designated scope. Informative decisions show the Office’s reasoning but do not bind the Board. Court opinions are cited for what they decided; later history was checked on the date shown above. General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.