throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 13, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V., EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`AND QIOPTIQ PHOTONICS GMBH & CO., KG.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2016-00554, -00555, -00556
`Patent 8,309,9431
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA A.
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceedings before Institution
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`On June 6, 2016, Petitioner, ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas
`Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG, and Patent
`Owner, Energetiq Technology, Inc. filed a Joint Motion to Terminate in each
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses the same issue in the above-identified cases and
`the cases identified in the Appendix. We exercise our discretion to issue one
`Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are not authorized
`to use this style of filing in subsequent papers, without prior authorization.
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00554, -00555, -00556
`Patent 8,309,943
`
`of the above-identified proceedings involving U.S. Patent No. 8,309,943.
`Paper 9.2 The parties also filed a true copy of their Written Settlement
`Agreement, made in connection with the termination of the proceedings, in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Ex. 1118. Additionally, the parties
`jointly requested that their Written Settlement Agreement, including written
`attachments, filed as Exhibit 1118, be treated as business confidential
`information. Paper 9, 6. For the reasons set forth below, the Joint Motions
`to Terminate and the Joint Request are granted.
`In their Joint Motions to Terminate, the parties indicate that they have
`settled all of their disputes involving the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
`7,435,982; 7,786,455; 8,309,943; 8,525,138; 8,969,841; 9,048,000; and
`9,185,786. Paper 9, 5. In particular, the parties have agreed to settle and
`dismiss their related district court case (Energetiq Tech., Inc. v. ASML
`Netherlands B.V., No. 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass.)) and terminate the
`International Trade Commission investigation (In the Matter of Certain
`Laser-Driven Light Sources, Subsystems Containing Laser-Driven Light
`Sources, and Products Containing Same, Inv. 337-TA-983 (U.S.
`International Trade Commission)). Id. at 1. Furthermore, the parties also
`have submitted Motions to Terminate all other inter partes reviews
`requested by Petitioner for the aforementioned patents. Id. The proceedings
`not yet instituted involving the above-referenced patents are listed in the
`Appendix of this Decision.
`
`
`2 For the purpose of clarity and expediency, we treat IPR2016-00554 as
`representative, and all citations are to IPR2016-00554 unless otherwise
`noted.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00554, -00555, -00556
`Patent 8,309,943
`
`
`Each of the proceedings addressed in this Decision is in an early
`stage. Petitioner filed a Petition in each of the above-identified proceedings.
`However, we have not determined yet whether an inter partes review should
`be instituted.
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the
`filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Upon consideration of
`the facts before us, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate the
`above-identified proceedings as to both parties, and enter judgment.
`
`
`ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that the parties’ joint request in each proceeding that their
`settlement agreement (identified by Exhibit number in the Appendix) be
`treated as business confidential information, be 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
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate in each of
`proceedings listed in the Appendix are granted, and each of the proceedings
`is terminated with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Judgment be entered into
`the files of each of the proceedings listed in the Appendix.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00554, -00555, -00556
`Patent 8,309,943
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Donald R. Steinberg
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Michael H. Smith
`Brian Seeve
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`Brian.Seeve@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`Gerald Worth
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`jcapraro@proskauer.com
`gworth@proskauer.com
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00554, -00555, -00556
`Patent 8,309,943
`
`
`APPENDIX
`
`
`IPR Case No.
`
`IPR2016-00554
`IPR2016-00555
`IPR2016-00556
`IPR2016-00565
`IPR2016-00566
`IPR2016-00570
`IPR2016-00575
`IPR2016-00576
`IPR2016-00578
`IPR2016-00579
`IPR2016-00583
`IPR2016-00584
`IPR2016-00585
`IPR2016-00688
`IPR2016-00689
`IPR2016-00771
`IPR2016-00774
`IPR2016-00775
`IPR2016-00776
`
`Exhibit No. of
`Settlement Agreement
`Ex. 1118
`Ex. 1317
`Ex. 1217
`Ex. 1135
`Ex. 1229
`Ex. 1120
`Ex. 1217
`Ex. 1317
`Ex. 1417
`Ex. 1517
`Ex. 1319
`Ex. 1419
`Ex. 1513
`Ex. 1235
`Ex. 1336
`Ex. 1039
`Ex. 1241
`Ex. 1339
`Ex. 1139
`
`
`
`
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket