- PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00098 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00098 as to all parties 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.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. 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).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,918,014 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00095 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00095 as to all parties 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.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “If 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).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,944,839 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00100 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00100 as to Oracle and Clouding 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.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. 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).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,825,891 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00075 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00075 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. § 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.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “If 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).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,925,481 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00275 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding as to all parties and granted confidential treatment of their settlement agreement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00275 is GRANTED, and this proceeding 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 · IPR2013-00271 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00271 as to all parties; it also granted their request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
RulingsOther- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“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 IPR2013-00271 is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“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 5,495,607 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00088 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00088 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 7,254,621 but not Oracle. The defendants in such other related litigation have not filed a petition for inter partes review of Patent 7,254,621. There is no pending motion by any third party for joinder with this inter partes review. 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.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,254,621 - 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
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.