`
`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
`
`
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
