- PTAB · Nov 14, 2014 · CBM2013-00055 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion, terminated the proceeding under the settlement, and did not issue a final written decision on the merits.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“November 12, 2014, the parties jointly requested that this trial proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement. Paper 32. With their motion to terminate, the parties also filed a copy of a written settlement agreement that they request be kept confidential. Paper 33; Ex. 2007. This proceeding has not resulted in a final decision on the merits. The parties indicate that they have agreed to resolve all disputes between the parties and that all district court litigations involving the challenged patent have been terminated. Paper 32, 2–3 (representing that, in several district court cases, a judgment on the pleadings has been entered finding claims 1–4, 10, and 11 of the challenged patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to enter judgment1 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request that the settlement agreement” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,266,015 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2014 · CBM2013-00056 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding as to all parties without issuing a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 327(a), “[a] post-grant review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Petitioner is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 327(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the post-grant review, the Office may terminate the post-grant review or proceed to a final written decision under section 328(a).” Trulia is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to Zillow as Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,970,674 - PTAB · Oct 14, 2014 · CBM2014-00026 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding after settlement; it did not decide patentability of any claims.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“separate from the patent file. Paper 44; Ex. 2030. In addition, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327. Paper 42. In the joint motion, the parties represent that the settlement agreement filed on October 9, 2014 is a true copy and resolves all disputes between the parties. Id. at 2–4. This covered business method patent review was instituted on May 15, 2014. Paper 25. At this juncture of the proceeding, the Board does not have before it full briefing on the trial issues and the Board has not entered a final decision. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.1 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,576,951 - PTAB · Oct 14, 2014 · CBM2014-00025 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Order
The Board granted the joint motion to terminate the instituted covered business method review after the parties settled all disputes.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“separate from the patent file. Paper 42; Ex. 2030. In addition, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327. Paper 41. In the joint motion, the parties represent that the settlement agreement filed on October 9, 2014 is a true copy and resolves all disputes between the parties. Id. at 2–4. This covered business method patent review was instituted on May 20, 2014. Paper 24. At this juncture of the proceeding, the Board does not have before it full briefing on the trial issues and the Board has not entered a final decision. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.1 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,010,508 - PTAB · Sep 4, 2014 · CBM2013-00042 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · CBM · Order
The Board granted the joint motion to terminate the proceeding and the request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 327(a), “[a] post grant review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The parties stated in their motion that they have settled their dispute and have reached agreement to terminate this inter partes review and the co-pending litigation. Paper 40, 4. The parties further indicate that they have agreed to resolve all disputes between the parties related to US Patent No. 5,878,400. Paper 40, 4. The parties are reminded that the Board is not a party to the settlement, and may independently identify 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). The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,878,400 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2014 · CBM2014-00061 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the instituted trial and granted confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“to a settlement. On August 12, 2014, we authorized the parties to file a joint request to terminate and to file the settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 13. The parties filed their motion later that day. Paper 14. With their motion to terminate, the parties also filed a copy of a written settlement agreement that they request be kept confidential. Paper 14, 3-4; Ex. 1022. We instituted trial in this proceeding on July 25, 2014. Thus, this proceeding is in the initial stages with no post-institution briefing yet filed. The parties indicate that they have agreed to resolve all disputes between the parties related to the challenged patent, which is not involved in any other litigation. Paper 14, 3. This assertion is consistent with the settlement agreement. Ex. 1022. Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to enter judgment and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the file of the involved patents under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,117,165 - PTAB · Aug 4, 2014 · CBM2014-00089 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding after settlement, before institution and without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The parties have moved to terminate this proceeding in view of their settlement of their underlying litigation. A decision by the Board to institute a trial has not yet been entered. Thus, this matter was in the preliminary stages at the time the parties moved to terminate. U.S. Patent 8,346,894 B2, which is the subject of this proceeding, is also the subject of CBM2014-00097, CBM2014- 00101, IPR2014-00413 and IPR2014-00414. Those proceedings will not be affected by the termination of this covered business method patent review. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment1 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is GRANTED and the proceeding is hereby terminated;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,346,894 - PTAB · Jun 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00018 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding after settlement; it made no final patentability decision.
RulingsOther- RehearingOther
“FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the dismissal of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 48) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,426,481 - PTAB · May 1, 2014 · CBM2014-00024 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding without a final written decision because the parties settled and the proceeding was in its early stages.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. The parties are reminded that the Board is not a party to the settlement, and may independently identify 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). The parties filed a joint motion stating that they settled their dispute and move to terminate this proceeding, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327(a). Paper 15 at 1. The parties filed what they describe as a true copy of their written settlement agreement, made in connection with the termination of the instant proceeding. Ex. 2016. The motion indicates that an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was entered on April 24, 2014 in the District Court case between the parties concerning Patent No. 8,402,281 B2. Paper 15 at 4 (citing Protegrity Corporation v. Voltage Security, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-441 (D. Conn.). This proceeding is in the early stages, as the Patent Owner has not yet filed a full response to the petition and the Board has not issued a final decision. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to enter judgment1 terminating this proceeding without rendering a final written decision.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,402,281 - PTAB · Apr 23, 2014 · CBM2014-00058 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding without a final written decision because it remained in the preliminary stages.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The parties stated in their motion that they “have reached a settlement agreement that requires the parties to terminate all current disputes between them.” Paper 7, 2. The joint motion indicates that concurrent with the filing of this Joint Motion to Terminate, the parties filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the related district court litigation between the parties involving the patents at issue in this proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 7,653,572 and U.S. Patent No. 7,899,704. Paper 7, 2-3. Furthermore, a trial has not been instituted in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,653,572
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.