`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: June 12, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. and TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00685
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination Pursuant to Settlement
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71, 42.73, 42.74
`
`
`On June 10, 2015, Petitioner (Apple, Inc. and Twitter, Inc.) and Patent
`Owner Summit 6 LLC (“Summit 6”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate.
`Paper 15. Along with the motion, the parties filed a copy of their Settlement
`Agreements, made in connection with the termination of this case, in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exs. 1030 & 1031. The parties also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00685
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`
`submitted a Joint Request That Settlement Agreements Be Treated as
`Business Confidential Information and Kept Separate Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.74(c). Paper 16. For the reasons set forth below, the Joint Motion to
`Terminate and the Joint Request are granted.
`The Board generally expects that a case “will terminate after the filing
`of a settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits.”
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14,
`2012); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. In their Joint Motion to Terminate, the parties
`indicate that the Settlement Agreements resolve all disputes between them
`involving the patent-at-issue in this case, U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 B2 (“the
`’482 patent”). See Paper 15 at 2. This case is in its initial phase. Summit 6
`filed a Preliminary Response on May 19, 2015, less than one month before
`the parties filed their joint Motion to Terminate. Paper 10. The Board has
`not determined whether to institute inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314. Upon consideration of the facts before us, we determine that it is
`appropriate to terminate this case and enter judgment, without rendering
`either a decision to institute inter partes review or a final written decision.
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a), 42.73(a), 42.74. We, therefore, grant the
`Joint Motion to Terminate. Paper 15.
`We also determine that the parties have complied with the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to have the Settlement Agreement
`treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the files
`of the ’482 patent. Thus, we grant the Joint Request That Settlement
`Agreements Be Treated as Business Confidential Information and Kept
`Separate Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 16.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00685
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`
`
`In addition, given the termination of the case as a result of the parties’
`settlement, we also dismiss as moot the pending Motion to Seal, filed by
`Summit 6. Paper 14. The subject papers of the Motion to Seal,
`Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2020, 2021, and 2033, are expunged from the record.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that the Joint Request that Settlement Agreements Be
`Treated as Business Confidential Information and Kept Separate Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (Paper 16) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Summit 6’s Motion to Seal (Paper 14) is
`dismissed as moot;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2020, 2021, and
`2033 are expunged; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 15)
`is granted and this case is hereby terminated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00685
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`Jason Eisenberg
`Shouvik Biswas
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`Jasone-ptab@skgf.com
`sbiswas-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`John Shumaker
`Brian Mangum
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`peter@leehayes.com
`jshumaker@leehayes.com
`brianm@leehayes.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
