`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`
`Entered: July 13, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and
`BMW MANUFACTURING CO., LLC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00933 (Patent 6,508,563)
`Case IPR2015-00934 (Patent 6,886,956)
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00933 (Patent 6,508,563)
`IPR2015-00934 (Patent 6,886,956)
`
`
`On July 9, 2015, the parties filed joint motions to terminate the instant
`proceedings pursuant to a settlement agreement. Paper 6.1 The parties also
`filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement, made in connection
`with the termination of the instant proceedings, in accordance with
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exhibit 1012. Additionally,
`the parties submitted joint requests 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. The parties also filed the order of the district
`court, dismissing with prejudice the district court case against Petitioner.
`Exhibit 1013.
`The instant proceedings are in the preliminary stage. The Board has
`not determined whether trial will be instituted in Petitioner’s requests for
`inter partes review of US Patent Nos. 6,508,563 and 6,886,956. 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 6, 1.
`Upon consideration of the requests before us, we determine that
`terminating the instant proceedings 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.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`
`1 The parties filed identical papers in the captioned cases. For ease of
`reference, this order references the papers filed in IPR2015-00933.
`2 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00933 (Patent 6,508,563)
`IPR2015-00934 (Patent 6,886,956)
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate IPR2015-00933 and
`
`IPR2015-00934 are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceedings are hereby
`terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint requests 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), are
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00933 (Patent 6,508,563)
`IPR2015-00934 (Patent 6,886,956)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Jonathan M. Lindsay
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`jsanok@crowell.com
`jlindsay@crowell.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`George W. Webb III
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`gwebb@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4