`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: June 10, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`MEDIATEK INC., and
`MEDIATEK USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00314 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00315 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00316 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent 8,542,643 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issue in four captioned inter partes reviews.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent papers
`without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00314 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00315 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00316 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00531 (Patent 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Joint Motions to Terminate
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`On June 2, 2015, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“Marvell”) and
`Bandspeed, Inc. (“Bandspeed”) jointly requested that each of the captioned
`proceedings (“these proceedings”) be terminated with respect to Marvell
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317. Paper 9.2 The parties represent that “the
`dispute between the parties has been resolved, and further, the parties have
`agreed to terminate this inter partes review.” Id. The parties further
`represent that “Petitioner MediaTek [presumably both MediaTek Inc. and
`MediaTek USA, Inc.] does not oppose termination of the instant proceeding
`with respect to Petitioner Marvell.” Id.
`With their Motions to Terminate, Marvell and Bandspeed filed what
`they represent is a “true copy of their written agreement” as Exhibit 1017.
`Id. The motions do not include a representation that all collateral
`agreements between the parties have been filed. The parties clarified in a
`conference call with the Board on June 10, 2015, that no collateral
`agreements between the parties exist, and that Exhibit 1017 provides the full
`agreement between the parties. The parties request that the agreement be
`treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), and
`concurrently filed Motions to Seal in each of the proceedings. Paper 10.
`Each of these proceedings is in an early stage and no decision whether
`
`
`2 Citations are to IPR2015-00314.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00314 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00315 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00316 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00531 (Patent 8,542,643 B2)
`
`to institute inter partes reviews has been made. Under these circumstances,
`we determine that it is appropriate to terminate these proceedings as to
`Marvell. The proceedings are not terminated with respect to MediaTek Inc.
`or MediaTek USA, Inc. The Motions to Seal are granted.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the joint Motions to Terminate the captioned
`proceedings with respect to Marvell are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Seal are granted, and that
`the joint requests that the settlement agreement be treated as business
`confidential information and be kept separate from the file of the involved
`patents under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), i.e., to be made available
`only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on
`a showing of good cause, are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that each of the captioned proceedings will
`continue with MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., as named
`petitioners.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00314 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00315 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00316 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`IPR2015-00531 (Patent 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Lori A. Gordon
`Robert E. Sokohl
`Jeffrey T. Helvey
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com
`jhelvey-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Gregory S. Donahue
`DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP
`gdonahue@dpelaw.com
`docketing@dpelaw.com
`
`David O. Simmons
`IVC PATENT AGENCY
`dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
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
