`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`
` Filed: February 2, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC,
`KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and
` KIA MOTORS MANUFACTURING GEORGIA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01476, Patent 8,155,342 B2
`Case IPR2016-01477, Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Request for Permission to File a Joint Motion to Terminate and a
`Joint Motion to File a Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential
`Information
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01476, Patent 8,155,342 B2
`IPR2016-01477, Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`On January 31, 2017, the Board received an email from counsel for
`Petitioner Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai
`Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors Corporation, Kia Motors
`America, Inc., and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) indicating that they have agreed to settle their dispute with
`Patent Owner Blitzsafe Texas, LLC. IPR2016-01476, Ex. 3003;
`IPR2016-01477, Ex. 3002. Petitioner requested permission to file a joint
`motion to terminate IPR2016-01476 and IPR2016-01477, and to file the
`settlement agreement, after it is executed, as business confidential
`information. IPR2016-01476, Ex. 3003; IPR2016-01477, Ex. 3002.
`Petitioner’s request for permission to file a joint motion to terminate
`and joint motion to file the settlement agreement as business confidential
`information is denied as unnecessary and moot. In each case, the Petition
`was denied and no inter partes review was instituted. IPR2016-01476,
`Paper 12; IPR2016-01477, Paper 13. Accordingly, there is no “trial” or
`“inter partes review instituted” to be terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 or
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a). There also is no “preliminary proceeding” to be
`terminated, because we denied institution of trial in each case. Moreover,
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b)’s requirement that any agreement or understanding
`“made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of a
`proceeding” does not apply to IPR2016-01476 and IPR2016-01477.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b) (emphasis added); see 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
`Specifically, in light of the denial of institution of inter partes review in each
`case, neither case in its present posture qualifies as a “proceeding,” i.e., “a
`trial or a preliminary proceeding,” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.2 (defining “preliminary proceeding,” “proceeding,” and “trial”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01476, Patent 8,155,342 B2
`IPR2016-01477, Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for permission to file a joint
`
`motion to terminate and joint motion to file the settlement agreement as
`business confidential information is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01476, Patent 8,155,342 B2
`IPR2016-01477, Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Paul R. Steadman
`Matthew D. Satchwell
`Gianni Minutoli
`Nicholas Panno
`DLA PIPER LLP
`paul.steadman@dlapiper.com
`matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com
`gianni.minutoli@dlapiper.com
`nicholas.panno@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Sharhar Harel
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`sharel@brownrudnick.com
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
