`
`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
`
`
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
