ORACLE CORPORATION PETITIONER v. CLOUDING IP,..., 2013 WL 4009924...
`
`(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:27)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
`
`(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:30)(cid:10)(cid:31)(cid:3)(cid:30)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:14)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:32)(cid:28)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:31)(cid:19)(cid:32)(cid:19)(cid:32)(cid:28)(cid:33)(cid:31)(cid:29)
`(cid:34)(cid:21)
`(cid:30)(cid:10)(cid:28)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:32)(cid:33)(cid:37)(cid:3)(cid:32)(cid:14)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:30)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:31)(cid:33)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:33)(cid:31)(cid:29)
`
`Case IPR2013-00088 (JL)
`Patent 7,254,621
`(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:42)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)
`
`For PETITIONER
`*1 Greg Gardella
`Scott A. McKeown
`OBLON SPIVAK
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Amy J. Embert
`Fahmi, Sellers & Embert
`tarek.fahmi@fseip.com
`amy.embert@fseip.com
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL W. KIM, and RAMA G. ELLURU
`Administrative Patent Judges
`LEE
`Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`Termination of Proceeding
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`On July 19, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate this inter partes review with respect to the petitioner (“Oracle”).
`(Paper 18.) With the joint motion, the parties filed a copy of their written settlement agreement covering Patent 7,254,621
`involved in this inter partes review. (Paper 20.) The parties also filed, on July 19, 2013, a joint request to have their settlement
`agreement treated as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). (Paper 19.)
`
`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 requirement for terminating review with respect to Oracle is met.
`
` © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`1
`
`USAA 1039
`
`

`
`ORACLE CORPORATION PETITIONER v. CLOUDING IP,..., 2013 WL 4009924...
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to
`a final written decision under section 318(a).” Oracle is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate
`this review with respect to the patent owner (“Clouding”).
`
`Clouding has not yet filed its Patent Owner Response or any Motion to Amend Claims. Oracle represents that it will no longer
`participate even if the Board does not terminate this review. That means Oracle will not file a reply to any Patent Owner
`Response or an opposition to any Motion to Amend Claims. Oracle also will not be conducting any cross examination of
`Clouding's witnesses.
`
`In a telephone conference call conducted on July 11, 2013, counsel for the parties represented that they will move to dismiss
`related district court litigation between the parties and involving Patent 7,254,621. The Board asked the parties to indicate in
`their joint motion to terminate proceeding whether there will be codefendants remaining in such related litigation. The joint
`motion indicates none.
`
`*2 The joint motion identifies other related litigation involving Patent 7,254,621 but not Oracle. The defendants in such other
`related litigation have not filed a petition for inter partes review of Patent 7,254,621. There is no pending motion by any third
`party for joinder with this inter partes review.
`
`The Board determines that in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to terminate review both as to petitioner Oracle
`and patent owner Clouding without rendering a final written decision See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00088 is GRANTED, and this inter partes review is hereby terminated
`as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties's joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential
`information under the 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is also GRANTED.
`
`(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:27)
`
`End of Document
`
`© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
` © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`2