`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`INDEED, INC. and MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CAREER DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438
`
`_______________
`
`Filed: February 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and 37 CFR § 42.74(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Indeed, Inc., Monster Worldwide, Inc., and Career Destination Devel-
`
`opment, LLC hereby file this Motion to Terminate these proceedings pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. 327(a) and 37 CFR § 42.74(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 327(b) and 37
`
`CFR § 42.74(b), the parties submit a true and correct copy of their written settle-
`
`ment agreements, made in connection with the termination of the instant proceed-
`
`ing, attached as Exhibits 2011-2013. The parties have settled these matters and the
`
`related cases pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
`
`has been dismissed with prejudice. Exhibits 2014-2016. In addition, litigation on
`
`a related patent against TheLadders.Com, Inc. has also been dismissed with preju-
`
`dice. With the dismissals of the lawsuits by Career Destination, LLC against In-
`
`deed, Inc., Monster Worldwide and The Ladders.Com, Inc., there are presently no
`
`other litigations pending based on the patent at issue in these proceedings.
`
`On December 3, 2014, a conference call was held between counsel for
`
`the respective parties and Judges Medley, Petravick, and Busch at the request of
`
`the Board. The Board issued an order authorizing the parties to file a motion to
`
`terminate this proceeding (Paper 17, p. 4).
`
`SETTLEMENT AND STIPULATION OF DUE DATES
`
`The parties began settlement discussions in October, and culminated
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`in the parties agreeing to the Settlement Agreements (Exs. 2001-2003) on Novem-
`
`ber 17, 2014, before Patent Owner’s response date of November 18, 2014. The
`
`Settlement Agreements were executed by Patent Owner and Petitioner Indeed on
`
`November 18, 2014, Petitioner Monster on November 19, 2014, and Petitioner
`
`TheLadders.Com on November 20, 2014. The parties promptly filed joint stipula-
`
`tions of dismissal in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
`
`(Exs. 2004-2006), and with the Board. However, because the parties did not pre-
`
`viously request permission to file the Joint Motion to Dismiss from the Board, their
`
`motion was denied and the motions expunged.
`
`Although trial has been instituted in the instant proceedings, it is still
`
`in the preliminary stage of the proceedings. As the board noted during the tele-
`
`phone conference on December 3, 2014, Patent Owner has not filed his response
`
`and the date has passed. However, the parties have stipulated to extending the
`
`dates and the Patent Owner will be requesting to file a motion with the Board to
`
`reset Due Dates 1-5.
`
`Patent Owner notes that in the Scheduling Order, Due Dates 1-5 may
`
`be modified by the parties by stipulation, and the notice of stipulation must be
`
`promptly filed. No definition of “promptly” is provided by the Rules or in the
`
`Scheduling Order. Further, Patent Owner is aware of no provision of 37 C.F.R.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`§42 et seq. requiring that a notice to extend a Due Date be filed with the Board be-
`
`fore the due date that is being modified.
`
`Patent Owner submits that had the parties filed a stipulation modify-
`
`ing the Due Dates on November 26, 2014 when the first motion to terminate was
`
`filed, it would have been prompt as required. However, because the parties had
`
`settled these matters, filing a stipulation adjusting the due dates would have been
`
`superfluous and a waste of resources.
`
`Further, Patent Owner submits that filing a stipulation modifying the
`
`Due Dates within 15 days is also reasonably prompt, as requested by the Patent
`
`Owner on the telephone conference with the Board on December 3, 2014. Rather
`
`than spend time preparing and filing a stipulated notice modifying these due dates,
`
`the parties were diligently working on the precise wording of the Settlement
`
`Agreements (Exs. 2001-2003). Patent Owner reasonably and in good faith be-
`
`lieved that it was not necessary the file a stipulation modifying the Due Dates once
`
`the settlement agreements were signed.
`
`TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`Although the Board is not a party to the settlement, and may identify
`
`independently any question of patentability pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a), the
`
`Board generally expects that a proceeding will terminate after filing of a settlement
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`agreement. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner believes that it is in the best interest of all parties
`
`and the Board to terminate these proceedings with respect to the Patent Owner. If
`
`the proceeding is not terminated, the Board will expend time and resources consid-
`
`ering Patent Owner’s request to modify Due Dates 1-5 in each of the proceedings
`
`CBM2014-00068, -00069, -00070, and -00077. If the dates are modified upon a
`
`showing of good cause or upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits
`
`would be in the interest of justice, then because Petitioners will no longer partici-
`
`pate in these proceedings, Petitioners will not file a reply to Patent Owner’s re-
`
`sponse, or any motion to amend the claims. Petitioners will not be conducting any
`
`cross-examination of Patent Owner’s witnesses. The Board would then be re-
`
`quired to prepare a final decision.
`
`Patent Owner believes that good cause may be shown because the set-
`
`tlement agreements were approved before DUE DATE 1. The parties agreed to
`
`prepare and file the Motion to Terminate (Paper 15, expunged) prior to expiration
`
`of DUE DATE 1. Patent Owner reasonably and in good faith did not believe that it
`
`was necessary to file a stipulation modifying the Due Dates if the cases had been
`
`settled. Patent Owner reasonably and in good faith did not believe that it was nec-
`
`essary to file a stipulation modifying the Due Dates before DUE DATE 1 because
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`the stipulation is a notice to the Board and thus did not require Board approval be-
`
`fore filing. Patent Owner reasonably and in good faith did not believe that it was
`
`necessary to file a stipulation modifying the Due Dates before DUE DATE 1 as
`
`long as the stipulation was filed promptly. Patent Owner reasonably and in good
`
`faith believed that if it was necessary to file a stipulation modifying the Due Dates,
`
`if the stipulation was filed within 15 days after DUE DATE 1, it would still be
`
`considered promptly filed. Finally, termination of these proceedings may avoid
`
`any post-decision proceedings.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the instant proceed-
`
`ings be terminated.
`
`Dated: December 9, 2014
`
`
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian M. Buroker
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39125)
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`BBuroker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioners
`Indeed, Inc. and Monster Worldwide, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICKSON KERNELL DERUSSEAU
`& KLEYPAS, LLC
`
`
`
`By: /s/ James J. Kernell
`James J. Kernell (Reg. No. 42720)
`8900 State Line Road, Suite 500
`Leawood, KS 66206
`Telephone: 913.549.4700
`Facsimile: 913.549.4646
`jjk@kcpatentlaw.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Career Destination Development, LLC
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify this 9th day of December 2014, that the foregoing
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate has been served electronically through the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeals Board’s Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) upon the lead and
`
`back-up counsel for the Petitioner, BRIAN M. BUROKER and PETER WEIN-
`
`BERG of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Wash-
`
`ington, D.C. 20036; JUSTIN F. BOYCE of Dechert LLP, 2440 West El Camino
`
`Real, Suite 700, Mountain View, California 94040; and JEFFREY B. PLIES of
`
`Dechert LLP, 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2010, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/James J. Kernell/
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`-7-
`
`
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
