`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: October 30, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01540
`Patent 6,886,956 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01540
`Patent 6,886,956 B2
`
`
`On authorization from the Board, Petitioner filed, on October 28,
`
`2015, a Joint Motion to Terminate Inter Partes Review. Paper 8. Petitioner
`also filed a 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 1015. 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 9. The filings convey that the parties have settled their
`dispute, that Petitioner will no longer participate in the proceeding, even if
`the proceeding is not terminated, and that there are no collateral agreements
`or understandings made in connection with the termination. Paper 8, 2. The
`parties also state that they “do not foresee any further litigation among them
`relating to the Subject Patent.” Id.
`The instant proceeding is 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 No. 6,886,956. 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.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2015-01540 is
`
`granted;
`
`1 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01540
`Patent 6,886,956 B2
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01540
`Patent 6,886,956 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eric A. Buresh (Lead Counsel)
`Jason R. Mudd (Back-up Counsel)
`Albert F. Harris III (Back-up Counsel)
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66200
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`al.harris@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`George W. Webb III (Lead Counsel)
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`1221 McKinney, Suite 3460
`Houston, TX 77010
`gwebb@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`4