Sony Corporationv.UChicago Argonne, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 201509989844 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2015) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 13 571-272-7822 Entered: November 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ SONY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UCHICAGO ARGONNE, LLC, Patent Owner. ____________ Case IPR2015-01520 (Patent 6,677,082 B2) Case IPR2015-01521 (Patent 6,680,143 B2) 1 ____________ Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge. ORDER Dismissing the Petition Pursuant to Settlement 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(a), 42.74 1 This Order addresses issues common to both cases; therefore, we issue a single order to be entered in each case. The parties are authorized to use this style heading when filing an identical paper in both proceedings, provided that such heading includes a footnote attesting that “the word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.” IPR2015-01520 (Patent 6,677,082 B2) IPR2015-01521 (Patent 6,680,143 B2) 2 On November 4, 2015, pursuant to Board authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner filed a joint motion to terminate each proceeding identified in the caption under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). Paper 9. 2 Along with the motion, the parties filed a copy of a document they describe as their written settlement agreement (Paper 9, 1; Ex. 1031), as well as a separate joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information. Paper 10; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (a party to a settlement may request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential and be kept separate from the patent file). The cases are in a preliminary stage. The Board has not yet issued decisions on whether to institute the proceedings. The parties state in the joint motion that they have settled their dispute and have reached agreement to terminate these inter partes reviews, as well as related ITC and district court litigation. Paper 9, 1–3. We are persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to dismiss the Petition in each proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a). This Order does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). It is therefore ORDERED that the joint motion is granted and the Petition is dismissed in each proceeding; and 2 The parties filed substantially similar papers and exhibits in each proceeding. Citations are to IPR2015-01520 as representative unless otherwise indicated. IPR2015-01520 (Patent 6,677,082 B2) IPR2015-01521 (Patent 6,680,143 B2) 3 FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file, is granted in each proceeding. IPR2015-01520 (Patent 6,677,082 B2) IPR2015-01521 (Patent 6,680,143 B2) 4 FOR PETITIONER: Lionel M. Lavenue Maximilienne Giannelli Joshua L. Goldberg Hojung Cho Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com maximilienne.giannelli@finnegan.com joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com hojung.cho@finnegan.com FOR PATENT OWNER: Brian E. Ferguson Anish R. Desai Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP brian.ferguson@weil.com anish.desai@weil.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation