`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
` Entered: June 22, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00520
`Patent 5,870,087
`____________
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Petition
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(a), 42.74
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00520
`Patent 5,870,087
`
`
`
`On December 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–13, and 16–18 of U.S. Patent No.
`5,870,087 (“the ’087 patent”). Paper 1. On June 15, 2017, Petitioner filed
`an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Petition, accompanied by a true copy
`of a written agreement settling the parties’ disputes regarding the ’087
`patent. Paper 8;1 Ex. 1012. Furthermore, Petitioner and Patent Owner filed
`a Joint Request to have their agreement treated as business confidential
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 9. The Motion represents
`that the parties “have settled their disputes, and have reached an agreement
`to terminate this IPR.” Paper 8, 2. The parties further certify that there are
`no collateral agreements or understandings made in connection with, or in
`contemplation of, the dismissal of the proceeding; related district court
`litigation involving the parties also has been settled; and no other pending
`litigation or proceeding involving the ’087 patent is contemplated in the
`foreseeable future. Id. at 3–4.
`This proceeding is still in a preliminary stage. Patent Owner has not
`filed a preliminary response, and we have not considered the merits of the
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Although titled “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Petition,” the Motion
`“request[s] termination of this inter partes review” pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(a). Paper 8, 2. Section 317(a) provides, in relevant part, “[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 the patent
`owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the
`request for termination is filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) (emphasis added).
`Because we have not yet issued a decision whether to institute an inter
`partes review, we treat the Motion as seeking dismissal of the Petition, as
`asserted in the Motion’s title.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00520
`Patent 5,870,087
`
`
`Petition. Furthermore the parties are jointly requesting dismissal. Id. at 2.
`Under these circumstances, Petitioner has demonstrated that dismissal of its
`Petition is warranted, and we grant Petitioner’s Motion. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(a) (authorizing the Board to dismiss a petition). We also grant the
`parties’ request to have their agreement treated as business confidential
`information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Request that their
`agreement (Ex. 1012) be treated as business confidential information under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00520
`Patent 5,870,087
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Gregory S. Arovas
`F. Christopher Mizzo
`Robert A. Appleby
`Eugene Goryunov
`Craig T. Murray
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`chris.mizzo@kirkland.com
`robert.appleby@kirkland.com
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`craig.murray@kirkland.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daniel S. Young
`Chad E. King
`SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, LLC
`dyoung@sbiplaw.com
`cking@sbiplaw.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
