`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 17
`
` Entered: June 15, 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 IPR2015-00687
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination Pursuant to Settlement
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71, 42.73, 42.74
`
`
`On June 10, 2015, Petitioners Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Twitter, Inc.
`(“Twitter”) (collectively, “Petitioner”) 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 two Settlement Agreements, one between
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00687
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`Apple and Summit 6 and another between Twitter and Summit 6, in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exs. 1030, 1031. The parties also
`submitted a Joint Request that the Settlement Agreements be treated as
`business confidential information and be kept separate from the files of the
`patent-at-issue, pursuant to 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 1–2. The motion also points out that this
`case is in its initial phase. Id. Summit 6 filed a Preliminary Response on
`May 19, 2015, less than one month before the parties filed their joint Motion
`to Terminate. 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. Id.
`We also determine that the parties have complied with the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to have the Settlement Agreements
`treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the files
`of the ’482 patent. Thus, we grant the Joint Request. Paper 16.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00687
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`
`In addition, given the termination of the case as a result of 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 Apple/Summit 6 and
`Twitter/Summit 6 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
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00687
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Shouvik Biswas
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`sbiswas-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Peter J. Ayers
`John Shumaker
`Brian Mangum
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`peter@leehayes.com
`jshumaker@leehayes.com
`brianm@leehayes.com
`
`
`
`
`4