`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 10
`
`
` Entered: February 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PRECISELEY MICROTECHNOLOGY CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DICON FIBEROPTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01728
`Patent 6,838,738 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Termination of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01728
`Patent 6,838,738 B1
`
`
`
`On February 17, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the
`instant proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement.1 Paper 8. 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. 1014. 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 9.
`The Board instituted the instant inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,838,738 B1 (“the ’738 patent”) on February 11, 2016. Paper 6.
`Neither a Patent Owner response, nor a reply by Petitioner has been filed,
`and no final hearing has been held.
`In their joint motion to terminate, the parties indicate that they have
`settled their dispute, and reached agreement to terminate the instant
`proceeding. Paper 8, 1. Under the terms of their agreement, the parties also
`are required to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims asserted
`in the related litigation. Id.
`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
`
`1 We note that pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b), the parties should have
`requested authorization to file a motion for termination prior to submission
`of the instant motion. Because no prejudice arises from this oversight,
`however, we waive the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b) in this instance,
`and address the merits of the joint motion for termination.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01728
`Patent 6,838,738 B1
`
`
`
`unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter
`judgment2 without rendering a final written decision. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2015-01728 is
`
`granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is hereby
`terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the
`settlement 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-01728
`Patent 6,838,738 B1
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert P. Lord
`Tammy J. Terry
`Jeffrey R. Guinn
`OSHA LIANG LLP
`lord@oshaliang.com
`terry@oshaliang.com
`guinn@oshaliang.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Erica D. Wilson
`Eric S. Walters
`Philip H. Albert
`James Hsue
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`ericawilson@dwt.com
`ericwalters@dwt.com
`philipalbert@dwt.com
`JamesHsue@dwt.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
