- PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00261 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00261 as to all parties before deciding whether to institute review.
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. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Oracle’s petition was filed on May 2, 2013, and Clouding has not yet filed its Preliminary Response. The Board has not yet determined whether an inter partes review should be instituted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,738,799 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00073 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00073 as to Oracle and Clouding without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The Board determines that in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to terminate review both as to petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding without rendering a final written decision See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00073 is GRANTED, and this inter partes review is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,738,799 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00099 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00099 as to Oracle and Clouding without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The Board determines that in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to terminate review both as to petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding without rendering a final written decision See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00099 is GRANTED, and this inter partes review is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’s joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under the 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is also GRANTED.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,065,637 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00094 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00094 as to Oracle and Clouding without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The Board determines that in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to terminate review both as to petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding without rendering a final written decision See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00094 is GRANTED, and this inter partes review is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’s joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under the 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is also GRANTED.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,596,784 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00304 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00304 as to all parties before deciding whether to institute review.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“As no trial has been instituted based on Oracle’s petition, this proceeding is in the preliminary proceeding stage.1 Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00304 is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 5,944,839 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00273 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding as to all parties before deciding whether to institute inter partes review.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“On July 19, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate this proceeding with respect to the petitioner (“Oracle”). (Paper 6.) With the joint motion, the parties filed a copy of their written settlement agreement covering Patent 7,065,637 involved in this proceeding. (Paper 8.) The parties also filed, on July 19, 2013, a joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). (Paper 7.)” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 7,065,637 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00090 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00090 as to Oracle and Clouding without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingOther
“The joint motion identifies other related litigation involving Patent 5,495,607 but not Oracle. The defendants in such other related litigation have not filed a petition for inter partes review of Patent 5,495,607. There is no pending motion by any third party for joinder with this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,495,607 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2013 · IPR2013-00021 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“On May 15, 2013, the parties filed a joint request (Paper Nos. 13 and 14) to terminate this trial proceeding (Joint Motions To Terminate And To Seal). See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. On June 4, 2013, the Board authorized the filing of the settlement as business confidential under 37 C.F.R. 42.74(c). Paper No. 15. On June 6, 2013 the parties filed a copy of a written settlement agreement. A decision by the Board to institute a trial was entered on April 15, 2013. Paper No. 11. However, this matter was in the preliminary stages at the time the parties moved to terminate. The parties have not identified any other related matters. 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 6,584,306
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.