`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: September 21, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00607 (Patent 7,643,168 B2)
`IPR2015-00610 (Patent 7,365,871 B2)1
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Joint Motion to Terminate
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in all cases. We exercise our
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however,
`are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00607 (Patent 7,643,168 B2)
`IPR2015-00610 (Patent 7,365,871 B2)
`
`
`On September 17, 2015, Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Patent Owner
`
`e-Watch, Inc. and e-Watch Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a “Joint
`
`Motion to Terminate” based on a settlement agreement that resolves the
`
`parties’ disputes related to the challenged patents. Paper 9.2 The parties
`
`concurrently filed a copy of the settlement agreement between Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owner (Ex. 1017) and a “Joint Request to Treat the Settlement
`
`Agreement as Business Confidential Information Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)” (Paper 10). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (“A party to
`
`a settlement may request that the settlement be treated as business
`
`confidential information and be kept separate from the files of an involved
`
`patent or application.”).
`
` 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.”
`
`These proceedings are in their early stages. For example, Patent
`
`Owner has not filed a Patent Owner Response. As a result, we have not yet
`
`decided the merits of this proceeding. Under these circumstances, we
`
`determine that it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding as to both
`
`Petitioners and Patent Owner without rendering a final written decision. See
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Citations are to the filings in IPR2015-00607, unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00607 (Patent 7,643,168 B2)
`IPR2015-00610 (Patent 7,365,871 B2)
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate is granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the settlement agreements (Exhibit 1017
`
`in IPR2015-0607 and Exhibit 1012 in IPR2015-00610) be treated as
`
`business confidential information and be kept separate from the files of the
`
`involved U.S. Patent Nos. 7,635,871 B2 and 7,643,168 B2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00607 (Patent 7,643,168 B2)
`IPR2015-00610 (Patent 7,365,871 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Steven L. Park
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`stevenpark@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`bob@curfiss.com
`
`
`David O. Simmons
`dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`
`
`4
`
`