`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: March 28, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00367 (Patent 8,868,060)
`Case IPR2016-00384 (Patent 8,385,966)
`Case IPR2016-00385 (Patent 8,385,966)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Dismissing Petition Pursuant To Settlement
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00367 (Patent 8,868,060)
`Case IPR2016-00384 (Patent 8,385,966)
`Case IPR2016-00385 (Patent 8,385,966)
`
`
`On March 25, 2016, the parties filed a “Joint Motion of Petitioner and
`Patent Owner to Terminate Proceeding” 1 in each of the three cases listed
`above because they “have reached a Settlement Agreement to end their
`disputes in this proceeding and the underlying litigation.” Paper 6, 1.2 The
`parties concurrently filed a copy of that Settlement Agreement and a
`collateral agreement referenced therein (Exs. 2001, 2002) along with a
`“Joint Request that the Settlement Agreement and Collateral Agreement be
`Treated as Business Confidential Information.” Paper 7; see also 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.74(c) (“A party to a settlement may request that the settlement be
`treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the
`files of an involved patent or application.”).
`
`Patent Owner has not filed a preliminary response in any of these
`proceedings, and we have not considered the merits of the Petitions. Under
`these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to dismiss the
`Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a). This paper does not constitute
`a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Petition in each of these proceedings is
`
`dismissed; and
`
`
`1 The parties style this a “Motion to Terminate” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317.
`The parties do not, however, explain how § 317, which refers to “[a]n inter
`partes review instituted under this chapter,” applies explicitly to this
`situation, in which an institution decision has not yet been rendered.
`2 Because the parties filed substantially the same documents in each of the
`three cases, we refer only to papers in IPR2016-00367.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00367 (Patent 8,868,060)
`Case IPR2016-00384 (Patent 8,385,966)
`Case IPR2016-00385 (Patent 8,385,966)
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request that the Settlement and
`Collateral Agreements (Exs. 2001, 2002) be treated as business confidential
`information and be kept separate from the file of the involved patents under
`the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Scott A. McKeown
`Greg Gardella
`Bradley D. Lytle
`OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`CPDocketGardella@oblon.com
`CPDocketLytle@oblon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Barry J. Bumgardner
`Matthew C. Juren
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`barry@nelbum.com
`matthew@nelbum.com
`
`Amedeo F. Ferraro
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`aferraro@martinferraro.com