`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: September 6, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01181 (Patent 6,744,387 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01182 (Patent 6,982,663 B2)1
`
`
`
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Joint Motions to Dismiss Petitions and
`Joint Requests to Treat Information as Confidential
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent
`papers without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01181 (Patent 6,744,387 B2)
`IPR2017-01182 (Patent 6,982,663 B2)
`
`
`Pursuant to our authorization, the parties filed Joint Motions to
`Dismiss Petitions and Joint Requests to Treat Information as Confidential in
`each of the captioned proceedings on August 30, 2017. Paper 8; Paper 9.2
`By way of background, the parties explain that Patent Owner had been
`involved in a related district court proceeding with (third party) Sony
`Corporation, i.e., Broadcom Corp. v. Sony Corp., No. 8:16-cv-01052 (C.D.
`Cal), but that Petitioner was not a party to that district court proceeding.
`Paper 8, 1. The parties represent that Patent Owner has settled its litigation
`with Sony, and, in any event, “there is no current dispute between the
`parties” to these proceedings. Id. at 1–2. The parties have “conferred and
`agreed that it is in both parties’ interest that the current Petition[s] be
`dismissed.” Id. (citing Ex. 1023). As such, the parties seek termination of
`the proceedings to minimize unnecessary costs. Id. at 3.
`The parties have submitted with their Motions “a signed agreement to
`dismiss the present petition.” Paper 9, 1 (citing Ex. 1023). The parties
`request that the Board treat this agreement as business confidential
`information and maintain the agreement separate from the file of the
`involved patents because the agreement contains certain confidential and
`sensitive business information of the parties. Id.
`
`
`2 Citations are to IPR2017-01181.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01181 (Patent 6,744,387 B2)
`IPR2017-01182 (Patent 6,982,663 B2)
`
`
`“An 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.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(a). The Office has not yet decided the merits of the proceedings,
`which remain at an early stage. We determine that good cause exists to
`terminate each proceeding with respect to all parties without rendering a
`final written decision.
`
`At the request of a party to the proceeding, the agreement or
`understanding shall be
`treated as business confidential
`information, shall be kept separate from the file of the involved
`patents, and shall be made available only to Federal Government
`agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of
`good cause.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b). After reviewing the parties’ settlement agreement, we
`find that the settlement agreement contains confidential business information
`regarding the terms of the settlement. We determine that good cause exists
`to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Joint Motions to Dismiss Petitions are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that these proceedings are hereby terminated
`
`as to both Petitioner and Patent Owner;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Requests to Treat Information
`as Confidential are granted; and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01181 (Patent 6,744,387 B2)
`IPR2017-01182 (Patent 6,982,663 B2)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the filed settlement agreement (Ex. 1023
`
`in IPR2017-01181; Ex. 1023 in IPR2017-01182) be treated as business
`confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.74(c) and also remain designated as “Parties and Board Only” in the
`Board’s electronic filing system.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brian Oaks
`Jennifer Nall
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`jennifer.nall@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daniel S. Young
`Chad E. King
`SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, LLC
`dyoung@sbiplaw.com
`cking@sbiplaw.com
`
`
`4
`
`