`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 19, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB;
`OXYSALES, UAB; AND CORETECH LT, UAB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
` IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Dismissal Prior to Institution of Trial
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. Given the similarities of
`issues, we issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this caption style.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510 B2)
`
`
`Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion
`To Terminate And Dismiss Inter Partes Review in each of these cases.
`IPR2023-00038 (“-00038 case”), Paper 18 (“Mot.”); IPR2023-00039
`(“00039 case”), Paper 19. Petitioner represents that Patent Owner does not
`oppose this Motion. Mot. 1.
`Petitioner filed the respective petitions, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`10,257,319 in the -00038 case and U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510 in the -00039
`case on October 17, 2022. No preliminary responses have yet been filed, the
`Board has not yet reached the merits, and no trials have been instituted.
`Petitioner asserts that the petition in the -00038 case is substantively
`identical to IPR2021-01492 (“-01492 IPR”), which challenges the same
`patent on the same grounds. 2 Mot. 1. Petitioner asserts that it was joined to
`IPR2021-01492, and Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing was recently
`denied, so “Petitioner[] and Patent Owner are presently parties to two IPRs
`challenging the same patent on the same grounds.” Id. Petitioner seeks to
`dismiss and terminate the cases because it is no longer necessary to proceed
`under these circumstances and dismissal and termination would be in the
`interest of judicial economy and would conserve the parties’ and the Board’s
`resources. Id. at 2. Petitioner asserts that there is good cause for dismissal
`and termination in order to preserve the Board’s and the parties’ resources
`and to further the purpose of inter partes review challenges. Id. at 6.
`
`
`2 We address the papers and issues in the -00038 case here as representative,
`because the issues are substantially the same in the -00039 case.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510 B2)
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, “[t]he Board may terminate a trial without
`rendering a final written decision, where appropriate,” and under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(a), the Board “may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion.”
`These cases are at very preliminary stages and the merits have not
`been reached. After reviewing the motions, we determine that good cause
`has been demonstrated to grant the unopposed motions for dismissal under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a) and to terminate the proceedings under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.72.
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions to dismiss are granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that these proceedings are hereby terminated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`George “Jorde” Scott
`John Heuton
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`theuton@ccrglaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Dunham
`Elizabeth O’Brien
`CHERIAN LLP
`tomd@ruyakcherian.com
`elizabetho@ruyakcherian.com
`
`
`4
`
`