`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 23
` Entered: June 22, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01846
`Patent 7,406,048 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Joint Motion to Terminate
`37 C.F.R. §42.72
`and
`Granting Request to Treat Settlement Documents as Business
`Confidential Information
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01846
`Patent 7,406,048 B2
`
`
`On June 13, 2018, Patent Owner and Petitioner (collectively
`“Parties”) filed a joint motion to terminate the above-identified inter partes
`review proceeding. Paper 21 (“Motion”). The Parties also filed a copy of
`their settlement agreement covering, inter alia, settlement of this inter partes
`review proceeding. Ex. 1018 (“Settlement Agreement”). The Parties
`represent in their joint motion that the filed copy of the Settlement
`Agreement is a true and correct copy, and that “[t]here are no collateral
`agreements or understandings made in connection with, or in contemplation
`of, the termination of this proceeding.” Motion 1.1 The Parties additionally
`filed a request to treat the Settlement Agreement as business confidential
`information. Paper 22 (“Request”). For the reasons discussed below, we
`grant the Parties’ Motion and Request.
`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.” The
`Office has not yet decided the merits of this proceeding, and a final written
`decision has not been entered. Accordingly, we determine good cause exists
`to terminate this proceeding.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), “[a] party to a settlement may request
`that the settlement be treated as business confidential information and be
`kept separate from the files of an involved patent or application.” After
`reviewing the Settlement Agreement between the Parties, we find the
`
`
`1 The Parties did not number the pages in their Motion. For purposes of this
`Order, we have assigned page number 1 to the first page following the
`caption page.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01846
`Patent 7,406,048 B2
`
`Settlement Agreement contains confidential business information regarding
`the terms of settlement. We, therefore, determine that it is appropriate to
`treat the Settlement Agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner as
`business confidential information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 21), as to both
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request (Paper 22) to treat the
`Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1018) as business confidential information
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated with respect
`to both Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01846
`Patent 7,406,048 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`David L. McCombs
`Theodore M. Foster
`David O’Brien
`Raghav Bajaj
`John R. Emerson
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`David.mccombs.irp@haynesboone.com
`Ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`David.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Robert C. Mattson
`Sameer Gokhale
`Aldo Martinez
`OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`CPDocketMattson@oblon.com
`CPDocketGokhale@oblon.com
`CPDocketMartinez@oblon.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
