throbber
Paper No. 18
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: October 9, 2018
`
`571.272.7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2017-01120 (Patent 8,899,239)
`IPR2018-00627 (Patent 8,393,331)
`IPR2018-00631 (Patent 9,339,062)
`IPR2018-00633 (Patent 9,326,551)
`IPR2018-00634 (Patent 9,456,632)1
`____________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN,
`DONNA M. PRAISS, BRIAN J. McNAMARA,
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`Per Curiam.
`
`
`ORDER
`Resolving Joint Motions to Terminate Pursuant to Settlement and
`Granting Joint Requests to Treat Settlement Agreement as Confidential
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues common to all five proceedings.
`Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to issue a single order to be entered
`in each proceeding.
`2 This nomenclature does not denote an expanded panel, but identifies
`panel members assigned to one or more proceeding identified in the caption.
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01120 (Patent 8,899,239)
`IPR2018-00627 (Patent 8,393,331)
`IPR2018-00631 (Patent 9,339,062)
`IPR2018-00633 (Patent 9,326,551)
`IPR2018-00634 (Patent 9,456,632)
`
`
`On October 4, 2018, pursuant to Board authorization, the parties filed
`joint motions for termination in each of the above-identified proceedings.
`Papers 56, 15, 10, 9, 10.3 Along with each motion, the parties filed a copy
`of a document they describe as their settlement agreement as well as a joint
`request to treat that agreement as business confidential information to be
`kept separate from the files of the involved patents. Papers 57, 16, 11, 10,
`11; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (a party to a settlement may request that the
`settlement agreement be treated as business confidential and be kept separate
`from the patent file).
`The parties represent “that they reached a settlement agreement
`resolving all disputes between them involving the patent-at-issue in” each of
`the five proceedings. Paper 56, 1; Paper 15, 1; Paper 10, 1; Paper 9, 1;
`Paper 10, 1. The parties further aver that “[t]here are no other agreements,
`oral or written, between Patent Owner and Petitioner” “made in connection
`with, or in contemplation of, the termination of” any of the proceedings. Id.
`The parties submit under seal “a true copy (including counterparts) of the
`settlement agreement.” Ex. 2065; Ex. 2014; Ex. 2081; Ex. 2081; Ex. 2087.
`The settlement agreement appears to represent a comprehensive agreement
`between adversaries that have been embroiled in several years of district
`court litigation and administrative disputes. Id. ¶¶ 1.27, 1.35, Ex. A
`(Licensed Patents).
`
`
`3 We sequentially refer to papers and exhibits filed in IPR2017-01120,
`IPR2018-00627, IPR2018-00631, IPR2018-00633, and IPR2018-00634.
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01120 (Patent 8,899,239)
`IPR2018-00627 (Patent 8,393,331)
`IPR2018-00631 (Patent 9,339,062)
`IPR2018-00633 (Patent 9,326,551)
`IPR2018-00634 (Patent 9,456,632)
`
`
`The five proceedings at issue here are in various stages of the
`administrative process: A final written decision is due in IPR2017-01120 on
`October 23, 2018; a Patent Owner Response is due in IPR2018-00627 on
`October 22, 2018; decisions on institution are due in IPR2018-00633 and
`IPR2018-00634 on October 18, 2018; and a decision on institution is due in
`IPR2018-00631 on October 12, 2018. The parties identify persuasive
`reasons why termination is appropriate in each proceeding. Paper 56, 1–5;
`Paper 15, 1–5; Paper 10, 1–5; Paper 9, 1–5; Paper 10, 1–5. Further, the
`parties’ resolution of the dispute surrounding the five patents at issue in
`these proceedings is part of a comprehensive agreement that resolves an
`expansive array of rights pertaining to significantly more than the involved
`U.S. Patents, including “all claims filed by [Patent Owner] against
`[Petitioner] in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
`North Carolina Case Nos. 1:16-cv-01255, 1:16-cv-01257, 1:16-cv-01258,
`and 1:17-cv-00175,” which have been “dismissed with prejudice” pursuant
`to a joint stipulation of the parties. Order entered Oct. 1, 2018;4 see
`Ex. 2065; Ex. 2014; Ex. 2081; Ex. 2081; Ex. 2087 (Exhibit A, Licensed
`Patents) (confidential settlement agreement).
`Under the particular facts and circumstances presented, we find that
`granting the joint motions in all five proceedings, according to the parties’
`wishes, is warranted, notwithstanding that a final written decision is due
`
`
`4 A copy of the district court’s order is entered in IPR2017-00627 as
`Exhibit 3001 and as Exhibit 3002 in each of the other four proceedings
`identified in the caption.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01120 (Patent 8,899,239)
`IPR2018-00627 (Patent 8,393,331)
`IPR2018-00631 (Patent 9,339,062)
`IPR2018-00633 (Patent 9,326,551)
`IPR2018-00634 (Patent 9,456,632)
`
`shortly in IPR2017-01120. Granting the joint motions in these interrelated
`proceedings promotes the “strong public policy” that favors “settlement
`between the parties to a proceeding.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The Board expects that a
`proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement, unless
`the Board has already decided the merits of the proceeding.”). Termination
`is proper because the parties jointly filed the requests for termination before
`a final decision on the merits was entered in any of the five proceedings.
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a). Based on our review of the settlement agreement,
`moreover, we find that the document contains confidential business
`information regarding the terms of settlement, and that good cause exists to
`treat the document as business confidential information pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
`Accordingly, we grant the parties’ joint motion to terminate the trial
`proceedings in IPR2017-01120 and IPR2018-00627. However, because the
`requests for trial termination were filed before decisions on trial institution
`were entered in IPR2018-00631, IPR2018-00633, and IPR2018-00634, we
`dismiss the Petitions in those preliminary proceedings. We also grant the
`parties’ joint motion to file the settlement agreement as business confidential
`information in each proceeding, to be kept separate from the files of the
`involved patents.
`This paper does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01120 (Patent 8,899,239)
`IPR2018-00627 (Patent 8,393,331)
`IPR2018-00631 (Patent 9,339,062)
`IPR2018-00633 (Patent 9,326,551)
`IPR2018-00634 (Patent 9,456,632)
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the parties’ joint motions to terminate trial in
`IPR2017-01120 and IPR2018-00627 are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are dismissed in
`IPR2018-00631, IPR2018-00633, and IPR2018-00634; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the
`settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, to
`be kept separate from the patent file, is granted in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01120 (Patent 8,899,239)
`IPR2018-00627 (Patent 8,393,331)
`IPR2018-00631 (Patent 9,339,062)
`IPR2018-00633 (Patent 9,326,551)
`IPR2018-00634 (Patent 9,456,632)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Ralph Gabric
`Robert Mallin
`Joshua Smith
`Yuezhong Feng
`Scott Timmerman
`Kyle Yarberry
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`jsmith@brinksgilson.com
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`stimmerman@brinksgilson.com
`kyarberry@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Michael Wise
`Joseph Hamilton
`Lara Dueppen
`Tyler Bowen
`Nathan R. Kassebaum
`mwise@perkinscoie.com
`jhamilton@perkinsoie.com
`ldueppen@perkinscoie.com
`tbowen@perkinscoie.com
`nkassebaum@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket