`
`Entered: April 27, 2017
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00603 (Patent 8,473,552 B1)
`Case IPR2017-00605 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`Case IPR2017-00606 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`Case IPR2017-00656 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`Case IPR2017-00669 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`____________
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, DAVID C. McKONE, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion to Dismiss
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00603 (Patent 8,473,552 B1)
`IPR2017-00605 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`IPR2017-00606 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`IPR2017-00656 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`IPR2017-00669 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation and Patent Owner Windy City
`Innovations, LLC, filed a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding (Paper 71)
`and a Joint Motion to Treat Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential
`Information (Paper 8) in each of the above-captioned cases. The parties
`represent that they have reached a settlement agreement, which is in writing
`and a true copy of which has been filed in conjunction with the above
`motions as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Paper 7, 2; Ex. 2001. The
`parties also certify that no other agreements exist between the parties
`concerning these cases or the patents at issue. Id.
`We construe each Joint Motion to Terminate as a motion to dismiss
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a) because no inter partes review has yet been
`instituted in these cases. At this early stage, we determine that dismissal is
`warranted in light of the parties’ joint requests and their settlement
`agreement. We further determine that the settlement agreement filed by the
`parties constitutes business confidential information. Therefore, the parties’
`joint motions discussed above are granted.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the parties joint motion to dismiss in each of the
`above-captioned cases is granted, and each case is dismissed; and
`
`
`1 All citations herein are to the record in IPR2017-00603. Similar filings
`were made in each of the above-captioned cases.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00603 (Patent 8,473,552 B1)
`IPR2017-00605 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`IPR2017-00606 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`IPR2017-00656 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`IPR2017-00669 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Treat
`Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information in each of the
`above-captioned cases is granted, and Exhibit 2001 in each case shall be
`kept separate from the pertinent file consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00603 (Patent 8,473,552 B1)
`IPR2017-00605 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`IPR2017-00606 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`IPR2017-00656 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`IPR2017-00669 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`John W. McBride
`Herman F. Webley
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`hwebley@sidley.com
`
`Todd M. Siegel
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Peter Lambrianakos
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`plamrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`4
`
`