`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: December 7, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SALESLOFT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INSIDESALES.COM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01070 (Patent No. 7,072,947 B1)
`Case IPR2017-01071 (Patent No. 7,076,533 B1)
`____________
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of the Proceeding
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01070 (Patent No. 7,072,947 B1)
`IPR2017-01071 (Patent No. 7,076,533 B1)
`
`
`As authorized by email, Petitioner SalesLoft, Inc., and Patent Owner,
`InsideSales.com, Inc., jointly move for termination of inter partes review in
`IPR2017-01070 (Paper 21, “Motion”) and IPR2017-01071 (Paper 20)
`(collectively, the “Joint Motions”). 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 patent owner,
`unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request
`for termination is filed.” In these proceedings, the Board has not yet reached
`a decision on the merits with respect to the patentability of any involved
`claim. Accordingly, we must terminate the review with respect to Petitioner.
`No other petitioner remains in this proceeding.
`Section 317(a) also provides that, “[i]f no petitioner remains in the
`inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final
`written decision under section 318(a).” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board,
`therefore, has discretion to terminate these reviews with respect to Patent
`Owner.
`These proceedings are at an early stage—Patent Owner has not yet
`filed a response. In the Joint Motions, the parties state that they have settled
`the dispute between them relating to the two patents at issue in these
`proceedings. Mot. 2. The parties inform us that the district court has
`dismissed the related litigation, in which the Patent Owner and Petitioner are
`the only parties. Mot. 3. We determine it is appropriate to terminate these
`inter partes reviews as to both Petitioner and Patent Owner without
`rendering final written decisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`The parties also request that the Board treat the Settlement Agreement
`and Mutual Release of Claims, filed as Exhibit 1016 (IPR2017-01070) and
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01070 (Patent No. 7,072,947 B1)
`IPR2017-01071 (Patent No. 7,076,533 B1)
`
`Exhibit 1020 (IPR2017-01071) as “business confidential information, to be
`kept separate from the files of the involved patents, and be 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).” IPR2017-01070, Paper 20; IPR2017-01071, Paper 21. That
`request is granted. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`It is
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate IPR2017-01070 is
`granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate IPR2017-
`01071 is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ request to treat Exhibit 1016
`in IPR2017-01070 as business confidential information pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ request to treat Exhibit 1020
`in IPR2017-01071 as business confidential information pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that these inter partes reviews are hereby
`terminated.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01070 (Patent No. 7,072,947 B1)
`IPR2017-01071 (Patent No. 7,076,533 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Patrick McPherson
`Daniel T. Xue
`Duane Morris LLP
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`DTXue@duanemorris.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Hardman
`Adam Richards
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`Christopher S. Geyer
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`thardman@rqn.com
`arichards@rqn.com
`tfletcher@wc.com
`cgeyer@wc.com
`
`
`
`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
