`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 14
`Filed: April 5, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2017-00017
`Patent 6,002,393
`_______________
`
`Before TRENTON A. WARD, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Joint Motion to Terminate
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.72, 42.74(c)
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00017
`Patent 6,002,393
`
`
`On April 3, 2017, with Board authorization, the parties filed a joint
`motion to terminate the proceeding (Paper 12), along with what they indicate
`is their written settlement agreement (Ex. 1041). According to the joint
`motion, the parties have settled their disputes, and have reached agreement
`to terminate the above-captioned CBM proceeding. See Paper 12, 2. The
`parties further request confidential treatment of the settlement agreement,
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 11.
`The joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business
`confidential information includes a request that the settlement agreement be
`kept separate from the patent file. Paper 11, 3; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)
`(“A party to a settlement may request that the settlement be treated as
`business confidential information and be kept separate from the files of an
`involved patent or application.”).
`The parties indicate good cause exists to terminate the above-
`identified CBM Proceeding. Paper 12, 3. In addition to being unopposed,
`the parties indicate that no Preliminary Response has been filed, the Board
`has not issued a decision on institution, and the settlement agreement ends
`all disputes related to the subject patent between the parties. Id. We agree
`that this proceeding is at an early stage. The Patent Owner, HBAC
`Matchmaker Media, Inc., has not filed a preliminary response, and the Board
`has not issued a decision on whether to institute trial. Based on the facts of
`this case, it is appropriate to terminate the proceedings, because doing so
`will preserve the Board’s resources and the parties’ resources while also
`comporting the Patent Office’s policy of “secur[ing] the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution” of proceedings before the Board. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.1(b).
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00017
`Patent 6,002,393
`
`
`Accordingly, the joint motion to terminate the above-identified
`proceeding and the joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business
`confidential information is granted. As requested by the parties, the
`settlement agreement will be treated as business confidential information
`and kept separate from the patent file. 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). This paper
`does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a).
`Therefore, it is
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the above-captioned
`proceeding is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding in CBM2017-00017 is
`terminated pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.72, 42.74(c); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the
`settlement agreement (Ex. 1041) be treated as business confidential
`information, be kept separate from the file of each involved patent, and
`made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or
`to any person on a showing of good cause, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00017
`Patent 6,002,393
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert Pluta
`Saqib J. Siddiqui
`MAYER BROWN, LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wayne Helge
`Aldo Noto
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`whelge@dbjg.com
`anoto@dbjg.com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
