`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 12
`
`
` Entered: July 28, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. and STANLEY ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
`IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)
`
`
`On July 27, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the
`instant proceedings pursuant to a settlement agreement. Paper 10.1 The
`parties also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement, made in
`connection with the termination of the instant proceedings, in accordance
`with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exhibit 1020.
`Additionally, the parties submitted joint requests 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 11.
`The instant proceedings are in the preliminary stage. The Board has
`not determined whether trial will be instituted in Petitioner’s requests for
`inter partes review of US Patent Nos. 6,508,563 and 6,886,956. The parties
`allege that they have settled their dispute and have agreed to jointly
`terminate the instant proceedings. Paper 10, 1.
`Upon consideration of the requests before us, we determine that
`terminating the instant proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes
`unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to
`enter judgment.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate IPR2015-00574 and
`
`IPR2015-00575 are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceedings are hereby
`terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
`
`1 The parties filed identical papers in the captioned cases. For ease of
`reference, this order references the papers filed in IPR2015-00574.
`2 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
`IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint requests that the
`settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, kept
`separate from the patent file, and made available only to Federal
`Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of
`good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), are
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
`IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`William H. Mandir
`Steven M. Gruskin
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`sgruskin@sughrue.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`George W. Webb III
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`gwebb@azalaw.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
