`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
` Entered: June 11, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Joint Motion to Terminate Involvement of the HTC Entities;
`Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential
`Information
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71, 42.74
`
`
`On June 9, 2015, Petitioners HTC Corporation and
`HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC Entities”) and Patent Owner
`Summit 6 LLC (“Summit 6”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate Involvement
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`of the HTC Entities (“Joint Motion to Terminate”). Paper 9. The Joint
`Motion to Terminate requests that we terminate the HTC Entities from this
`case because the HTC Entities and Summit 6 have entered into a Settlement
`Agreement. Id. Along with the motion, the parties filed a copy of their
`Settlement Agreement in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Ex. 1015.
`The parties also submitted a Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement as
`Business Confidential Information Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper
`10. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are granted.
`In their Joint Motion to Terminate, the HTC Entities and Summit 6
`indicate that their Settlement Agreement resolves 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 9, at 1. In addition, the motion points out that this
`case is in its initial phase. Id. Summit 6 has not filed a Preliminary
`Response to the Petition. The Board also 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 the HTC Entities’ involvement in this case and to
`dismiss the HTC Entities as parties to the case. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a),
`42.71(a), 42.74; Paper 9, at 1–2. We note that the termination of the HTC
`Entities’ involvement in this case does not terminate the case, because
`Google Inc. remains as a petitioner. See Paper 9, at 1.
`Turning to the Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement as Business
`Confidential Information Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), we determine
`that the HTC Entities and Summit 6 have complied with the requirements of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to have their Settlement Agreement treated as business
`confidential information and kept separate from the files of the ’482 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`
`ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate Involvement of the
`HTC Entities (Paper 9) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case continues with Google Inc. as
`the petitioner;
`FURTHER ORDERED that any subsequent papers filed in this case
`should not include HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. in the caption;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to File Settlement
`Agreement as Business Confidential Information (Paper 10) is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`John Alemanni
`Michael Morlock
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Peter 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
