`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: February 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`INTRALINKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LONE STAR DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00005
`Patent 6,918,082
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and KEVIN W.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceedings
`35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00005
`Patent 6,918,082
`
`
`
`On January 19, 2016, Intralinks, Inc. and Lone Star Document
`Management, LLC (collectively referred to as “the parties”) filed a joint
`motion to terminate this covered business method patent review involving
`U.S. Patent No. 6,918,082 pursuant to a settlement agreement. Paper 6.
`Authorization to file the motion was given in a phone conference between
`the Board and the parties on January 8, 2016. Id. at 1. The parties also filed
`a true copy of their written settlement agreement, made in connection with
`the termination of this proceeding, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 327(b)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Ex. 1003. Additionally, the parties request to have
`their settlement agreement treated as confidential business information under
`35 U.S.C. § 327(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 6 at 2–3.
`The parties submit that termination is appropriate because the parties
`have settled their dispute regarding the challenged patent and have reached
`agreement to terminate this covered business method review. Id. at 2. The
`parties represent that the settlement agreement ends all patent disputes
`between the parties, including their pending district court litigation, which
`was dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 1–2.
`The parties are reminded that the Board is not a party to the
`settlement, and may identify independently any question of patentability.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a). Generally, however, the Board expects that a
`proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See,
`e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00005
`Patent 6,918,082
`
`
`
`14, 2012). The instant proceeding is still in the preliminary stages,1 and the
`Board has not issued yet a decision to institute a covered business method
`review.
`Under the circumstances, based on the record before us, we determine
`that it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding with respect to both
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, to promote efficiency and
`minimize unnecessary costs. Based on the facts, it is appropriate to enter
`judgment terminating this proceeding without rendering a final written
`decision and treat the settlement agreement as business confidential
`information. See 35 U.S.C. § 327; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72 and 42.74(c).
`
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement
`
`agreement (Exhibit 1003) be treated as business confidential information
`under 35 U.S.C. § 327(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), to be kept separate from
`the patent file, is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate CBM2016-
`00005 is GRANTED; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is TERMINATED.
`
`
`
`
`1 The deadline to file a patent owner preliminary response is February 3,
`2016.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`CBM2016-00005
`Patent 6,918,082
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan Bockman
`jbockman@mofo.com
`
`Fahd Hussein Patel
`fpatel@mofo.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy Devlin
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Xiyan Zhang
`xzhang@devlinlawfirm.com