throbber
Paper 18
`Entered: February 22, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC. and
`ZIMMER DENTAL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOUR MILE BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01059
`Patent 8,684,734 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`RICE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Termination of the Proceeding
`35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01059
`Patent 8,684,734 B1
`
`
`On February 19, 2016, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate
`Proceeding (Paper 15), jointly requesting based on a Settlement Agreement
`(Ex. 1015) that we terminate the instant inter partes review proceeding
`involving U.S. Patent No. 8,684,734 B1 (“the ’734 patent”). The panel
`authorized the filing of the Motion to Terminate via e-mail on February 16,
`2016. The Parties also filed a Joint Request to Treat Settlement Agreement
`as Business Confidential under 35 U.S.C § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`Paper 16.
`The Parties state in support of their Motion to Terminate:
`Termination of this proceeding is appropriate because a
`final written decision has not been reached and the Parties will
`no longer be participating in this proceeding. The Parties have
`settled their disputes and executed a settlement agreement to
`terminate the IPR proceedings involving the ’734 patent
`(IPR2015-0l058, -1059), as well as the district court litigation
`involving the ’734 patent: Four Mile Bay LLC v. Zimmer
`Holdings, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1300 (NB)-
`(JEM) (N.D. Ind.). The Parties filed a stipulation of dismissal in
`the related district court action on February 11, 2016.
`
`
`Paper 15, 2.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under
`this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint
`request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the
`merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.”
`Furthermore, under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the
`inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a
`final written decision under section 318(a).” Generally, the Board expects
`that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01059
`Patent 8,684,734 B1
`
`See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`In this case, the proceeding is at a relatively-early stage, and the
`Parties have filed with the Board a true copy of their Settlement Agreement
`agreeing to terminate the proceeding.
`Upon consideration of the circumstances of this case, the panel has
`determined that termination of this inter partes review is appropriate without
`rendering a final written decision.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Parties’ Request to Treat Settlement Agreement
`as Business Confidential (Paper 16) is hereby granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ Settlement Agreement
`(Ex. 1015) shall be treated as business confidential information under
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c);
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ Motion to Terminate
`(Paper 15) is hereby granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is hereby terminated.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`4
`
`IPR2015-01059
`Patent 8,684,734 B1
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Naveen Modi
`Paromita Chatterjee
`Srikala P. Atluri
`Paul Hastings LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`mitachatterjee@paulhastings.com
`srikalaatluri@paulhastings.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Patrick Richards
`Richards Patent Law P.C.
`patrick@richardspatentlaw.com

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket