`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RAYMARINE, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`NAVICO HOLDING AS
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-004-97
`
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`JOINT MOTION BY PETITIONER AND PATENT OWNER TO
`TERMINATE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37
`-
`C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`LEGAL02/34732009V1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 CPR. § 42.74, Petitioner
`
`Raymarine Inc. (“Raymarine”) and Patent Owner Navico Holding AS
`
`(“Navico”) jointly request termination of the inter partes review of US. Patent
`
`No. 8,305,840 Case No. IPR2013-00497.
`
`I.
`
`Termination of Case No. IPR2013-00497 Would Be Appropriate.
`
`Termination of Case No. IPR2013-00497 by the PTAB would be
`
`appropriate. This case is at a sufficiently early stage of the trial, and no motions
`
`or petitions are outstanding in this case.3 Further, the parties entered into a
`
`Confidential Settlement Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit NAV-2002).
`
`The Confidential Settlement Agreement requires both parties to terminate all
`
`disputes, including: (i) Inter Partes Review Proceedings Nos. 2013-00355,
`
`2013-00496 and 2013-00497; (ii) In the Matter ofCertain Marine Sonar Imaging
`
`Devices, Products Containing The Same, And Components Thereofi before the
`
`US. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, Inv. No. 337~TA~898;
`
`and (iii) Navico, Inc. and Navico Holding AS v. Raymarine Inc. in the US. District
`
`Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-00554 .
`
`Therefore, termination of this case is appropriate because (i) the case is at a
`
`3 Patent Owner has not filed a full response, and one is not due until May 12, 2014.
`
`LEGAL02/34732009V1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sufficiently early stage of the trial, (ii) the parties have settled their disputes, (iii)
`
`Patent Owner has agreed to dismiss the related litigation, and (iv) the parties to
`
`this case agree that this inter partes review should be terminated.
`
`As set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, the Confidential
`
`-
`
`Settlement Agreement between Raymarine and Navico has been made in writing,
`and a true and correct copy is being filed with the Patent Office as an exhibit to
`
`this Joint Motion. As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), because Raymarine and Navico
`
`request this termination, no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (e) shall attach as to
`
`Petitioner Raymarine. Further, a joint request to treat the Confidential Settlement
`
`Agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37
`
`CPR. § 42.74(c) is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`Therefore, Raymarine and Navico respectfully request termination of the
`
`inter partes review of US. Patent No. 8,305,840, Case No. IPR2013-00497.
`
`March L2, 2014
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By%
`
`Christopher TL Douglas
`Reg. No. 56,950
`Alston & Bird LLP
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Navico _
`
`LEGAL02/3 4732009V1
`
`
`
`Thomas King
`Reg. No. 69,721
`Haynes and Beone, LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioner Raymarine
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/34732009v1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Updated Exhibit Listing
`
`NAV ~ 2001
`
`Declaration by Alan Proctor to Establish Conception and
`
`Reduction to Practice Prior to August 28, 2008
`
`NAV ~— 2002
`
`Confidential Settlement Agreement
`
`LEGAL02/34732009v1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review ofUS. Patent No. 8,305,840 — 1PR2013-00497
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies service on
`
`the Petitioner of a copy of this Joint Motion by Petitioner and Patent Owner to
`
`Terminate Proceeding and an Updated Exhibit Listing via electronic delivery
`
`directed to davidmccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com as submitted in the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review:
`
`David L._ McCombs
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`23 23 Victory Ave.
`
`Suite 700
`
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Dated: March[5, 2014
`
`C 22 6Q,“
`
`Christopher TL Douglas
`Reg. No. 56,950
`
`LEGAL02/3 4732009v1
`
`:
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`