Hanesbrands Inc.v.Buoy Unlimited, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2016

13103785 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14, IPR2015-01193;
571-272-7822 Paper 13, IPR2015-01194;
Paper 17, IPR2015-01195;
Paper 14, IPR2015-01196
Entered: February 10, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

HANESBRANDS INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

BUOY UNLIMITED, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Cases IPR2015-01193 (7,938,710 B2); IPR2015-01194 (8,506,350 B1);
IPR2015-01195 (8,506,350 B1); IPR2015-01196 (8,753,170 B1)
____________

Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Granting Joint Motion to Terminate
35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74
IPR2015-01193 (7,938,710 B2); IPR2015-01194 (8,506,350 B1);
IPR2015-01195 (8,506,350 B1); IPR2015-01196 (8,753,170 B1)

2
After obtaining our authorization to do so, the parties filed in each of
these four cases a joint motion to terminate the proceedings pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 317(a). See Paper 12.1 Along with the joint motion, the parties
filed a settlement agreement. See Ex. 2002. The parties represent that the
exhibit is a true copy of the written agreement by which they have settled
their dispute, and that there are no other agreements relating to these
proceedings. Paper 12, 2. The parties also represent that they have jointly
stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of the related District Court case
Buoy Unlimited, Inc. v. Hanesbrands, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-296-Orl-
28KRS (M.D. Fla.), and that the District Court has ordered that case closed.
Id. at 3.
These proceedings are at an early stage in that Patent Owner has not
yet filed a Patent Owner Response. In view of the early stage of these
proceedings, and the concurrent settlement of the dispute between the parties
pending in the District Court lawsuit, we determine that it is appropriate to
terminate these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Therefore, the joint
motion to terminate these proceedings is granted.
The parties also filed in each case a joint request that the settlement
agreement be treated as business confidential information pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). See Paper 13. We grant the
parties’ request.

1 A substantively identical motion appears in each of the four proceedings.
For convenience, we refer in this Decision to the papers in Case IPR2015-
01193.
IPR2015-01193 (7,938,710 B2); IPR2015-01194 (8,506,350 B1);
IPR2015-01195 (8,506,350 B1); IPR2015-01196 (8,753,170 B1)

3
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement
agreement (Ex. 2002 in IPR2015-01193; Ex. 2001 in IPR2015-01194; Ex.
2003 in IPR2015-01195; Ex. 2002 in IPR2015-01196) be treated as business
confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file, is granted;
and
FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2015-
01193, IPR2015-01194, IPR2015-01195, and IPR2015-01196 is granted,
and that these inter partes reviews are hereby terminated.

PETITIONER:

P. Weston Musselman, Jr.
Brian Livedalen
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
musselman@fr.com
IPR39798-0273IP1@fr.com

PATENT OWNER:

Stephen C. Thomas
Courtney M. Dunn
LOWNDES, DROSDICK, DOSTER, KANTOR & REED, P.A.
stephen.thomas@lowndes-law.com
courtney.dunn@lowndes-law.com
ipr@lowndes-law.com