- PTAB · Mar 6, 2015 · IPR2014-00439 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ revised joint motion and terminated the proceeding as to both parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“and that, even if the parties agree to settle any issue in a proceeding, the Board may independently determine any question of patentability. 37 C.F.R § 42.74(a). Generally, however, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). We have not yet decided the merits of this proceeding. For example, the oral argument has not been held. The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding as to both Petitioner and Patent Owner without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the revised joint motion to terminate this proceeding is GRANTED and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to both Petitioner and Patent Owner; and” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,365,871 - PTAB · Sep 24, 2014 · IPR2014-00969 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding under the settlement, without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The Board generally expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,123,117 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2014 · IPR2014-00188 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated IPR2014-00188 without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“filed a joint motion to terminate the respective proceeding, along with a true copy of their written settlement agreement (Ex. 2001) and a release (Ex. 2002), made in connection therewith, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Paper 16.2 The parties also filed joint motions in each case to treat each settlement agreement and release as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 17.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,493,097 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2014 · IPR2014-00189 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated IPR2014-00188, IPR2014-00189, and IPR2014-00193 without final written decisions.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“filed a joint motion to terminate the respective proceeding, along with a true copy of their written settlement agreement (Ex. 2001) and a release (Ex. 2002), made in connection therewith, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Paper 16.2 The parties also filed joint motions in each case to treat each settlement agreement and release as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 17.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,493,097 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2014 · IPR2014-00193 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated IPR2014-00188, IPR2014-00189, and IPR2014-00193 without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“filed a joint motion to terminate the respective proceeding, along with a true copy of their written settlement agreement (Ex. 2001) and a release (Ex. 2002), made in connection therewith, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Paper 16.2 The parties also filed joint motions in each case to treat each settlement agreement and release as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 17.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,785,530 - PTAB · Jun 5, 2014 · IPR2013-00521 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated the IPR as to both parties without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The parties are reminded that the Board is not a party to the settlement and that, even if the parties agree to settle any issue in a proceeding, the Board may independently determine any question of patentability. 37 C.F.R § 42.74(a). Generally, however, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). This proceeding is still in the preliminary stages. The Patent Owner’s Response has not yet been filed. The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding as to both Petitioner and Patent Owner without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,839,926 - PTAB · Dec 20, 2013 · IPR2014-00102 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Order
The Board withdrew the earlier judgment, granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding, and terminated it without deciding whether to institute review.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“proceeding was still in the preliminary stages. Patent Owner had not yet filed a preliminary response and the Board had not yet determined whether to institute an inter partes review. Petitioner also filed a “Notice of Non-Participation” stating that it no longer intended to participate in the proceeding. Paper 5. The parties further represent that the related district court litigation involving the challenged patent was terminated based on the parties’ settlement agreement. Paper 12 at 1. The parties identify no other related matters. Under the circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to terminate the proceeding without rendering a final written decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,490,348 - PTAB · Dec 20, 2013 · IPR2014-00101 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Order
The Board withdrew its prior judgment, granted the parties’ joint motion, and terminated the proceeding based on settlement before institution.
RulingsOther- RehearingOther
“In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the judgment entered on December 4, 2013 in this proceeding is withdrawn;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,312,286
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.