`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: January 20, 2015
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00011
`Patent 7,218,923 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00011
`Patent 7,218,923 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`This case involves a request for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`7,218,923 B2 (“the ’923 patent”). Paper 4. On January 7, 2015, we
`authorized the parties to file a joint motion to terminate this proceeding. Ex.
`1024. On January 13, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate
`under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 (Paper 9, “Motion” or “Mot.”),
`along with a copy of the parties’ written settlement agreement (Ex. 1025).
`The parties concurrently filed a joint request to treat the settlement
`agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 10. On January 16, 2015, Judges Bisk,
`Anderson, and Weinschenk held a telephone conference call with counsel
`for Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) and counsel for Cellular
`Communications Equipment LLC (“Patent Owner”). During the telephone
`conference, the parties agreed to file as an exhibit the collateral agreements
`referenced in the settlement agreement, and the parties explained the nature
`of the settlement agreement with respect to the ’923 patent. On January 16,
`2015, the parties filed a copy of the collateral agreements referenced in the
`settlement agreement. Ex. 1026, 1027. For the following reasons, the joint
`motion to terminate and the joint request to treat the settlement agreement as
`business confidential information are granted.
`II. ANALYSIS
`This proceeding is in the preliminary stage. A Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response has not been filed, and a decision whether to institute
`a trial has not been rendered. Petitioner and Patent Owner filed a joint
`motion to dismiss the co-pending district court litigation between them
`without prejudice on January 7, 2015. Mot. 2. There are other pending
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00011
`Patent 7,218,923 B2
`
`proceedings in district court and the Office involving the ’923 patent (id. at
`3–5), but Petitioner and Patent Owner are the only parties to this proceeding
`(id. at 3). Based on the facts of this case, we determine it is appropriate to
`enter judgment terminating this proceeding with respect to all parties. We
`further find sufficient cause to treat the settlement agreement and collateral
`agreements referenced therein as business confidential information.
`Therefore, we grant the joint motion to terminate and the joint request to
`treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate is granted, and this
`proceeding is terminated as to all parties; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request that the settlement
`agreement and collateral agreements referenced therein, filed as Exhibits
`1025, 1026, and 1027 in this proceeding, be treated as business confidential
`information, kept separate from the file of the ’923 patent, and made
`available only to Federal Government agencies upon written request or any
`other person upon written request and a showing of good cause pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00011
`Patent 7,218,923 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Barry J. Bumgardner
`Steven B, Latimer
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CASTO, P.C.
`
`Amedeo F. Ferraro
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`
`4
`
`
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
