`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`Date: May 16, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Motion to Terminate
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71, 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`On May 11, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate this
`
`proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317. Paper 14. Along with the motion, the parties
`filed copies of a document they described as the written settlement agreement.
`Exhibit 1024. The motion was accompanied by a joint request to treat the
`settlement agreement as business confidential information under the provisions of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 15.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review . . . 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.” Further, “[i]f 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).” Id. The parties state in their motion that they have
`reached settlement on all claims in the underlying litigation and do not contemplate
`any further litigation or controversy involving the challenged patent. Paper 14.
`They request that the proceeding be terminated. Id.
`This proceeding is in the preliminary stages. A decision to institute has not
`been entered, and the Board has not reached a final decision on the merits of the
`petition. The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, good cause
`exists to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding without rendering a final
`written decision. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71, 42.72.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the petition is dismissed, the joint motion to terminate this
`proceeding is granted, and IPR2017-00261 is hereby terminated;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`agreement (Exhibit 1024) be treated as business confidential information, kept
`separate from the file of the involved patent, and made available only to Federal
`Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good
`cause, under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is
`granted.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John D. Vandenberg
`Andrew M. Mason
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Amir Naini
`Neil A. Rubin
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`anaini@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`