Paper 40
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: August 9, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FREDMAN BROS. FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BEDGEAR, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2017-00524
`Patent 9,155,408 B2
`___________
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TERMINATION
`Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial
` 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: August 9, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FREDMAN BROS. FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BEDGEAR, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2017-00524
`Patent 9,155,408 B2
`___________
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TERMINATION
`Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial
` 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00524
`Patent 9,155,408 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner Fredman Bros. Furniture
`Company, Inc. and Patent Owner Bedgear, LLC (collectively, “Parties”)
`filed a Joint Motion to Terminate this proceeding due to settlement.
`Paper 39 (“Joint Motion”). In support of the motion, the Parties filed a copy
`of a confidential settlement agreement (Ex. 2018 (“Settlement
`Agreement”)), as well as a joint request to file the settlement agreement as
`business confidential pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)
`(Paper 38 (“Joint Request”)).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`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
`request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided
`the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.”
`Section 317(a) also provides that if no petitioner remains in the inter partes
`review, the Office may terminate the review. Section 317(b) requires that
`any agreement between the parties, including collateral agreements, made in
`connection with the termination of an inter partes review “shall be in writing
`and a true copy of such agreement or understanding shall be filed in the
`Office before the termination of the inter partes review as between the
`parties.”
`The Parties represent that they have made and signed an agreement
`that resolves all underlying disputes between the parties, including this
`proceeding. Joint Motion 1. Further, the Parties jointly certify that, aside
`from the Settlement Agreement, “there are no other agreements or
`understandings, oral or written, between the parties, including any collateral
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00524
`Patent 9,155,408 B2
`
`agreements or understandings, made in connection with, or in contemplation
`of, the termination of the present proceeding,” and that the filed copy of the
`Settlement Agreement is a true and correct copy. Id.
`We instituted trial on July 17, 2017 and entered a final written
`decision on July 13, 2018. Although we decided the merits of this
`proceeding and entered a final written decision, the Federal Circuit vacated
`that final written decision based on the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex decision.
`Bedgear, LLC v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co., 803 F. App’x 407 (2020)
`(order vacating and remanding) (citing Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Petitioner filed a petition for writ of
`certiorari, which was dismissed upon a joint stipulation of dismissal on June
`23, 2021. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Bedgear, LLC, No. 20-408, 2021
`WL 2908899 (U.S. June 23, 2021).
`Notwithstanding that this proceeding has moved beyond the
`preliminary stages, the Parties have shown adequately that termination of the
`proceeding is appropriate. Under these circumstances, we determine that
`good cause exists to terminate the proceeding. We further determine that the
`Settlement Agreement complies with the requirements for written
`agreements regarding termination set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
`The Parties also filed a Joint Request that the Settlement Agreement
`be treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the
`file of the patent involved in this inter partes proceeding. Joint Request.
`After reviewing the Settlement Agreement between Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, we find that the Settlement Agreement contains confidential
`business information regarding the terms of settlement. We determine that
`good cause exists to treat the Settlement Agreement between Petitioner and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00524
`Patent 9,155,408 B2
`
`Patent Owner as business confidential information pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`This Order does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
` ORDER
`III.
`Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate is granted, and this
`proceeding is terminated pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.72; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request to File Settlement
`Agreement as Business Confidential is granted, and the Settlement
`Agreement shall be kept separate from the file of U.S. Patent No. 9,155,408
`B2, 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).
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00524
`Patent 9,155,408 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Jason R. Mudd
`Eric A. Buresh
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Frank M. Fabiani
`Alexander Walden
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`joerichetti@bryancave.com
`frank.fabiani@bryancave.com
`alexander.walden@bryancave.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
