- PTAB · Sep 15, 2014 · IPR2014-00473 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions, terminated the instituted inter partes reviews as to Intel and Zond, and granted confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Generally, 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). Upon consideration of the facts before us, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate the above-identified proceedings as to both parties, and enter judgment. For the foregoing reasons, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motions to Terminate the above-identified inter partes reviews are granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the above-identified proceedings are terminated as to all parties—namely, Intel and Zond; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Request that their Written Settlement Agreement be treated as business confidential information kept separate from the patent file, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,811,421 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2014 · IPR2014-00447 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated the instituted inter partes reviews as to Intel and Zond after settlement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Generally, 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). Upon consideration of the facts before us, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate the above-identified proceedings as to both parties, and enter judgment. For the foregoing reasons, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motions to Terminate the above-identified inter partes reviews are granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the above-identified proceedings are terminated as to all parties—namely, Intel and Zond; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Request that their Written Settlement Agreement be treated as business confidential information kept separate from the patent file, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,147,759 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00555 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated the five inter partes reviews without issuing final written decisions.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Based on the present record, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate these inter partes reviews both as to Sealed Air and Pregis without rendering a final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3
None - PTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00557 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated the five related inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes 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.” In these proceedings, the Board instituted trial on March 6, 2014 (Paper 13), but has not yet reached a decision on the merits with respect to the patentability of any involved claim. Accordingly, the requirement for terminating the reviews with respect to Sealed Air, as Petitioner, is met.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,047,705 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00554 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated the five inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes 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.” In these proceedings, the Board instituted trial on March 6, 2014 (Paper 13), but has not yet reached a decision on the merits with respect to the patentability of any involved claim. Accordingly, the requirement for terminating the reviews with respect to Sealed Air, as Petitioner, is met. Also under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).” Sealed Air is the sole Petitioner. The Board, therefore, has discretion to terminate these reviews with respect to Pregis. In their joint motions, the parties contend that the trials are at a “sufficiently early stage,” as Sealed Air has not yet filed its Replies to Pregis’ Patent Owner Responses, and no motions are outstanding at this time. Paper 45, 2-3. The parties also note that they have agreed to dismiss the co-pending district court action Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc. v. Sealed Air Corporation (D. Del. Civil Action No. 13-1084-LPS), involving the patents and parties before us here. Id.” slip op. at 2
None - PTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00556 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motions and terminated the five inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes 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.” In these proceedings, the Board instituted trial on March 6, 2014 (Paper 13), but has not yet reached a decision on the merits with respect to the patentability of any involved claim. Accordingly, the requirement for terminating the reviews with respect to Sealed Air, as Petitioner, is met. Also under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).” Sealed Air is the sole Petitioner. The Board, therefore, has discretion to terminate these reviews with respect to Pregis. In their joint motions, the parties contend that the trials are at a “sufficiently early stage,” as Sealed Air has not yet filed its Replies to Pregis’ Patent Owner Responses, and no motions are outstanding at this time. Paper 45, 2-3. The parties also note that they have agreed to dismiss the co-pending district court action Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc. v. Sealed Air Corporation (D. Del. Civil Action No. 13-1084-LPS), involving the patents and parties before us here. Id. 1 Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the record of IPR2013-00554; similar papers may be found in the records of the other related proceedings. Based on the present record, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate these inter partes reviews both as to Sealed Air and Pregis without rendering a final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,607,803 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00558 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions and terminated the five inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes 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.” In these proceedings, the Board instituted trial on March 6, 2014 (Paper 13), but has not yet reached a decision on the merits with respect to the patentability of any involved claim. Accordingly, the requirement for terminating the reviews with respect to Sealed Air, as Petitioner, is met. Also under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).” Sealed Air is the sole Petitioner. The Board, therefore, has discretion to terminate these reviews with respect to Pregis. In their joint motions, the parties contend that the trials are at a “sufficiently early stage,” as Sealed Air has not yet filed its Replies to Pregis’ Patent Owner Responses, and no motions are outstanding at this time. Paper 45, 2-3. The parties also note that they have agreed to dismiss the co-pending district court action Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc. v. Sealed Air Corporation (D. Del. Civil Action No. 13-1084-LPS), involving the patents and parties before us here. Id.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,047,705 - 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 · Apr 15, 2014 · IPR2013-00186 · APJ Jennifer M Meyer · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00186 after settlement, without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The documents to be expunged were submitted after institution of trial and were not considered by the Board in instituting trial. Furthermore, redacted versions of these confidential documents remain a part of the record; the parties do not seek to expunge the corresponding redacted documents. Based on the facts in this case and the termination of the proceedings, we hereby grant the parties’ joint motion to withdrawn their Motions to Seal and to expunge specific exhibits from the record.” slip op. at 4
- ExcludeGranted
“FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to expunge Paper 41 (unredacted version), Paper 50 (unredacted version), Paper 60 (unredacted version), Paper 66 (unredacted version), Exhibit 1033 (unredacted version), Exhibit 1034 (unredacted version), Exhibit 1035 (unredacted version), Exhibit 1036 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2009 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2010 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2011 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2012 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2013 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2014 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2015 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2016 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2017 (unredacted version), Exhibit 2021 (unredacted version), and Exhibit 2047 (unredacted version) is GRANTED; and upon entry of this decision, those exhibits will be expunged from the record of the instant proceedings.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 7,785,334 - PTAB · Apr 15, 2014 · IPR2013-00184 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions, terminated the inter partes review without a final written decision, and granted their requests concerning confidentiality, withdrawal, and expungement.
RulingsOther- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“In the joint motion, the parties state that the documents to be expunged were submitted after institution of trial and had not been considered by the Board in instituting trial. Furthermore, redacted versions of these confidential documents remain a part of the record; the parties do not seek to expunge such redacted documents. Based on the facts in this case and the termination of the proceedings, we hereby grant the parties’ joint motion to withdrawn their Motions to Seal and to expunge specific exhibits from the record.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,806,905
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.