`
`571-272-7822
` Date Entered: January 23, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA
`INC., LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH
`AMERICA LLC, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLVO CARS OF
`NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Joint Motion to Terminate the Inter Partes Review
`with Respect to Nissan North America, Inc.
`35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`1. Introduction
`
`
`
`On December 23, 2014, Cruise Control Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`
`and Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”) (collectively referred to as “the
`
`Parties”), as authorized1, filed a Joint Motion to Terminate this inter partes review
`
`proceeding with respect to Nissan. Paper 27 (“Joint Motion to Terminate”). Along
`
`with the Joint Motion to Terminate, the Parties filed a true copy of their written
`
`settlement agreement (Ex. 2000), as well as a joint request (Paper 28) to have their
`
`settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`2. Discussion
`
`
`
`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 Parties also state the
`
`following in the Joint Motion to Terminate:
`
`Patent Owner and Nissan respectfully submit that termination is
`appropriate because they have reached an agreement resolving the
`dispute involving the patent at issue in the above-captioned Inter
`Partes Review, it is prior to full briefing on the issues raised in the
`above-captioned Inter Partes Review, and the Board has not issued a
`final written decision. Further, Nissan represents that it will no longer
`participate even if the Board does not terminate its participation in the
`above captioned Inter Partes Review. That means Nissan will file no
`further papers. It also will not be participating in any oral argument.
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate 1.
`
`
`1 The motion was authorized via e-mail correspondence from Board personnel on
`December 19, 2014.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`
`Upon consideration of the circumstances of this proceeding, the panel has
`
`determined to terminate the inter partes review (IPR2014-00289) as to Nissan.
`
`3. Order
`
`
`
`
`It is
` ORDERED that, as was requested timely by the Parties (Paper 28), the
`
`settlement agreement (Exhibit 2000) will be treated as business confidential
`
`information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c); and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate the involvement
`
`of Nissan in IPR2014-00289 is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00289
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`John M. Caracappa
`Tremayne M. Norris
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`jcaracap@steptoe.com
`tnorris@steptoe.com
`
`
`
`William H. Mandir
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`
`
` Matthew D. Satchwell
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`Wab Kadaba
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`Matthew J. Moore
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kelly L. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`