`Date: May 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MEDTRONIC XOMED, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEUROVISION MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01847
`Patent 8,467,844 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination Due to Settlement after Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01847
`Patent 8,467,844 B2
`
`
`
`I. Introduction
`We instituted trial on March 23, 2016. Paper 14. On May 8, 2017,
`Petitioner, Medtronic Xomed, Inc. (“Medtronic”), and Patent Owner,
`Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. (“Neurovision”), (collectively referred
`to as “the parties”), filed a Joint Motion to Terminate Inter Partes Review
`under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). Paper 17 (“Joint Motion to Terminate”).1 Along
`with the Joint Motion to Terminate, the parties filed a true copy of a
`Settlement and License Agreement (Ex. 2026, “Settlement Agreement”), as
`well as a Joint Request to Keep Separate Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (Paper 18 (“Joint Request to Keep Separate”)).
`
`II. Discussion
`The parties are reminded that the Board is not a party to the
`settlement, and may identify independently any question of patentability.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a). Generally, however, 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).
`In the Joint Motion to Terminate, the parties represent that they have
`settled their dispute and have reached an agreement that resolves the dispute
`in this inter partes review and all disputes between the parties relating to the
`’844 patent. Paper 17, 2.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under
`this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint
`
`
`1 Filing of the Joint Motion to Terminate was authorized in e-mail
`correspondence from Board personnel on May 8, 2017.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01847
`Patent 8,467,844 B2
`
`
`request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the
`merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.”
`At this stage of the proceeding, Neurovision has not filed a Patent
`Owner’s Response, and such a response is not due until June 21, 2017.
`Paper 16, 6. The panel has not decided the merits of the challenges
`presented in the Petition. Upon consideration of the circumstances of this
`case, the panel has determined to terminate this inter partes review as to
`both Medtronic and Neurovision without rendering a final written decision.
`
`III. Orders
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 17) is granted,
`
`and this proceeding is hereby terminated; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request to Keep Separate
`(Paper 18) is also granted, and the Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2026) will be
`treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the files
`of the ’844 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01847
`Patent 8,467,844 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Justin J. Oliver
`Jason Dorsky
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`joliver@fchs.com
`Medtronic894IPR@fchs.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Neil A. Rubin
`Kent Shum
`C. Jay Chung
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`kshum@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`
`
`4
`
`
`