Draeger Safety, Inc. v E.D. Bullard Company

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2014

12567951 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 Entered: March 26, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

DRAEGER SAFETY, INC.
Petitioner

v.

E.D. BULLARD COMPANY
Patent Owner

Case IPR2014-00226
Patent 7,897,919
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GLENN J. PERRY, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Termination of Proceeding
37 C.F.R. § 42.73
IPR2014-00226
Patent 7,897,919

2

On March 14, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the instant
proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement. Paper 7. The parties also filed a
true copy of their written settlement agreement, made in connection with the
termination of the instant proceeding, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and
37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Ex. 1025. Additionally, the parties submitted 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 8.
Petitioner filed the Petition for Inter Partes Review on December 4, 2013.
Paper 1. The Board mailed the Notice of Filing Date Accorded on December 11,
2013. Paper 3. Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response, which could
have been submitted March 11, 2014 or earlier. In their joint motion to terminate,
the parties indicate that they have settled their dispute, including all related
litigation, and reached agreement to terminate the instant proceeding. Paper 7, 2.
The parties urge the Board to terminate this instant proceeding with respect to both
Petitioner and Patent Owner. Id. The parties submit that termination is appropriate
because inter partes review has not been instituted and Patent Owner has not filed
a preliminary response. Id. Further, the parties report that no other parties are
accused of infringing the subject patent. Paper 6, 2.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we agree with the parties that
terminating the instant proceeding with respect to both Petitioner and Patent
Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary
costs. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment
1
without
rendering a final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.

1
A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a
proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.

IPR2014-00226
Patent 7,897,919

3

Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2014-00226 is granted;
FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is hereby terminated as
to Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement and
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.

IPR2014-00226
Patent 7,897,919

4

For Petitioner:
Cyrus A. Morton
Miles A. Finn
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P
camorton@rkmc.com
mafinn@rkmc.com

For Patent Owner:
Mandy Decker
William Ferrell
STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
mdecker@stites.com
wferrell@stites.com