PTAB
Advanced fields
8 decisions · 405msnewest first
  • PTAB · Nov 24, 2014 · PGR2014-00010 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · PGR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated PGR2014-00010 without a final decision; it also granted confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.

    RulingsOther
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

      “Patent Owner’s preliminary response is not yet due. On November 20, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding (Paper 7) and a copy of their written settlement agreement (Ex. 2001). Along with the motion to terminate, the parties also filed a joint motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the file of U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 (“the ’219 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327(b) and 37 C.F.R § 42.74(c). Paper 8, 1.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,598,219
  • PTAB · Oct 30, 2014 · IPR2014-01171 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding and the request to keep the settlement agreement confidential; no trial had been instituted.

    RulingsOther
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

      “The parties have requested that this trial proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement. On October 28, 2014, we authorized the parties via e-mail to file a joint request to terminate this proceeding and to file the settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties filed their joint motion on October 29, 2014. Paper 15. With their motion to terminate, the parties also filed a copy of a” slip op. at 1

    None
    Patents in suitUS 7,021,594
  • PTAB · Sep 17, 2014 · IPR2014-00315 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding after settlement; the petitioner withdrew its rehearing request.

    RulingsOther
    • RehearingOther

      “We note that we denied institution of inter partes review on July 8, 2014. Paper 14. Petitioner, however, filed a Request for Rehearing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 of our decision not to institute trial, and that Request has not yet been decided. Thus, the possibility that trial may be instituted still remains. Petitioner also withdraws its Request for Rehearing in view of the joint motion to terminate. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is GRANTED.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,318,738
  • PTAB · Jun 26, 2014 · IPR2014-00084 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding following settlement, without issuing a final written decision.

    RulingsOther
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

      “A decision by the Board to institute a trial was entered on April 1, 2014. Paper 12. This matter, however, is in the preliminary stages. The parties have not identified any other related matters. 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.” slip op. at 2

    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

      “to a settlement. On June 20, 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 15. On June 20, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate, as well as a joint motion requesting that the joint settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and sealed. Papers 16 and 17; see also 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. With their motion to terminate and seal, the parties also filed a copy of a written settlement agreement. Ex. 1018.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,361,235
  • PTAB · Jun 25, 2014 · IPR2014-00133 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding after settlement.

    RulingsOther
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

      “On June 16, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings. Paper 18. Accompanying the motion, the parties filed a true copy of a settlement agreement along with a joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, to be kept separate from the patent file pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. Paper 19; Ex. 2001. The parties sought, and the Board granted, authorization for the filing of joint motions to terminate these proceedings and requests to file the settlement agreement as business confidential information. A decision to institute an inter partes review in this case was entered by the Board on May 15, 2014. An initial conference was held on June 17, 2014. No significant activity has occurred since entry of our decision to institute. Based on the facts of the case, it is appropriate to terminate the proceeding. Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 7,537,706
  • PTAB · Jun 25, 2014 · IPR2014-00132 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding and their request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.

    RulingsOther
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

      “Board on May 15, 2014. An initial conference was held on June 17, 2014. No significant activity has occurred since entry of our decision to institute. Based on the facts of the case, it is appropriate to terminate the proceeding. Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file, is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding is terminated.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 7,033,492
  • PTAB · May 12, 2014 · IPR2014-00636 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered it terminated; no trial had been instituted.

    RulingsOther
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

      “the parties filed a copy of a settlement (Ex. 2001) agreement along with a joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, to be separate from the patent file. Paper 10. The parties filed also a joint motion to terminate the proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317. Paper 9. This case is in the preliminary proceeding1 stage; no institution of a trial has been made. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is GRANTED.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,278,351
  • PTAB · Jan 21, 2014 · IPR2014-00126 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Order

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution and ordered the proceeding terminated.

    RulingsOther
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “This case is in the preliminary proceeding1 stage; no institution of a trial has been made. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is GRANTED.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,383,675

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.