`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 10
`
`
` Entered: May 22, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00798
`Patent 6,886,956
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and MICHELLE
`N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00798
`Patent 6,886,956
`
`
`On May 20, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the
`
`instant proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement. Paper 9. The parties
`
`also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement, made in
`
`connection with the termination of the instant proceeding, in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exhibit 1016.
`
`Additionally, the parties submitted a joint request 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 7. At the request of the panel, the
`
`parties also filed the order of the district court, dismissing with prejudice the
`
`district court case against Petitioner. Exhibit 1017.
`
`The instant proceeding is in the preliminary stage. The Board has not
`
`determined whether trial will be instituted in the instant request for inter
`
`partes review of US Patent No. 6,886,956. Further, the deadline to file a
`
`patent owner response is almost a month away, and no motions are pending.
`
`The parties submit that termination is appropriate because the parties have
`
`settled their dispute, and the Board has not entered a decision regarding
`
`institution. Paper 9, 2.
`
`Upon consideration of the requests before us, we determine that
`
`terminating the instant proceeding with respect to both Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes
`
`unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter
`
`judgment.1 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`
`1 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00798
`Patent 6,886,956
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2015-00798 is
`
`granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is hereby
`
`terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request 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), is
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00798
`Patent 6,886,956
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Michael Lennon (Lead counsel)
`Clifford Ulrich (Backup counsel)
`Michelle Carniaux (Backup counsel)
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`George W. Webb III (Lead counsel)
`gwebb@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`