`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: April 7, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-01322
`Patent 6,314,409 B2
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Termination of Inter Partes Review
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01322
`Patent 6,314,409 B2
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`International Business Machines Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 2) for inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 13–20 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,409 B2 (Ex. 1005, “the ’409
`
`Patent”). On December 8, 2015, we instituted trial for all of the challenged
`
`claims of the ’409 Patent. Paper 12. Subsequently, in a separate proceeding
`
`involving the ’409 patent, we issued a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 328(a) determining claims 1–11, 13–21, 24–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and
`
`36–39 to be unpatentable. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co v. Intellectual Ventures
`
`II, Case CBM2014-00157 (PTAB January 12, 2016), Paper 40. Patent
`
`Owner indicates that the time period has lapsed for appeal of the Final
`
`Written Decision in J.P Morgan Chase & Co v. Intellectual Ventures II,
`
`Case CBM2014-00157 to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See
`
`Paper 20, 1; Ex. 3001, 7:18–8:5. Therefore, all of the challenged claims in
`
`this inter partes review are unpatentable.
`
`Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response in this trial. We
`
`issued an Order to show cause why inter partes review should not be
`
`terminated as moot. Paper 19. Patent Owner and Petitioner both respond
`
`that inter partes review should be terminated. Papers 20, 21.
`
`The particular facts before us indicate that it is appropriate to
`
`terminate this inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Claims 1–11 and
`
`13–20 of the ’409 Patent have already been determined unpatentable, and
`
`any decision we might reach in this proceeding regarding the patentability of
`
`these claims would be moot and purely advisory. Furthermore, rendering a
`
`Final Written Decision would not promote securing the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01322
`Patent 6,314,409 B2
`
`ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that this inter partes review is terminated as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01322
`Patent 6,314,409 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Kenneth R. Adamo
`Brent P. Ray
`Joel R. Merkin
`Eugene Goryunov
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`kenneth.adamo@kirkland.com
`brent.ray@kirkland.com
`jmerkin@kirkland.com
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Jonathan M. Strang
`Byron L. Pickard
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com
`bpickard-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Donald J. Coulman
`Tim R. Seeley
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`dcoulman@intven.com
`tim@intven.com
`
`4