`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
` Entered: February 21, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00421
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and KERRY BEGLEY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Joint Motion to Terminate
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`On February 17, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate this
`inter partes review with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, on the
`basis that they have settled. Paper 26, 1. Also on February 17, 2017, the
`parties filed a copy of their written settlement agreement covering Patent
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00421
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`No. 7,489,786 B2 involved in this inter partes review (Ex. 2001), and a joint
`request to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential
`information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (Paper 27).
`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.” The
`requirement for terminating this proceeding with respect to Petitioner is met.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “If 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).” Toyota Motor Corporation is the sole
`petitioner in this proceeding. The Board has discretion to terminate this
`proceeding with respect to Blitzsafe Texas, LLC as Patent Owner.
`In this proceeding, all substantive papers have been filed by the
`parties, and we have ordered that no oral hearing will be held. Paper 25. A
`final written decision is expected by July 7, 2017, one year from institution
`of trial on July 7, 2016. In the joint motion, the parties indicate that they
`have settled their related district court action involving Patent No. 7,489,786
`B2 and have moved before the district court for dismissal of the action.
`Paper 26, 1. They also indicate that they have agreed to seek termination of
`this inter partes review proceeding. Id.
`In the circumstances of this case, particularly in light of the fact that a
`final written decision is not due until more than four months from now, we
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00421
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`determine that termination with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner
`is appropriate.
`It is
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2016-00421 both as
`to Petitioner and Patent Owner is granted, and that this inter partes review is
`hereby terminated as to all parties including Toyota Motor Corporation as
`Petitioner and Blitzsafe Texas, LLC as Patent Owner; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request (Paper 27) to
`have their settlement agreement (Exhibit 2001) treated as business
`confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)
`is also granted.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`William H. Mandir
`John F. Rabena
`Brian K. Shelton
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`jrabena@sughrue.com
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
