`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: July 19, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01039
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Termination of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a), 42.72, 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01039
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`On June 19, 2017, the parties contacted the Board by email to request
`authorization to file a joint motion to terminate this proceeding pursuant to a
`settlement agreement, as well as a joint request to keep the settlement
`agreement confidential. In an email sent on June 20, 2017, the Board
`authorized the parties to file a motion to terminate the above-captioned
`proceeding and a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
`On June 21, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss and
`Terminate the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,231,379
`under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(a) (“Motion”). Paper 6. The parties concurrently
`filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement as business confidential
`information, and for it to be kept separate from the patent file, pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (Paper 7), along with a copy of the written settlement
`agreement (Ex. 1027). The parties represent that Exhibit 1027 is a true and
`accurate copy of their settlement agreement. Motion 1.
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the
`filing of a settlement agreement, if the settlement agreement includes all
`parties to the proceeding and unless the Board has already decided the merits
`of the proceeding. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The parties filed such a settlement
`agreement. Ex. 1027. Petitioner and Patent Owner represent that their
`settlement agreement fully resolves their dispute. Paper 6, 1. Moreover, this
`proceeding is at a preliminary stage, Patent Owner has not yet filed a
`preliminary response, and no trial has been instituted on any claim. No
`decision whether to institute inter partes review has been made. Under these
`circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate this
`proceeding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01039
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`After reviewing the parties’ settlement agreement, we find that the
`settlement agreement contains business confidential information regarding
`terms of the settlement and good cause exists to treat the settlement
`agreement as business confidential information pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.74(c).
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Motion to terminate IPR2017-01039 (Paper 6), as
`to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request (Paper 7) to treat the
`parties’ settlement agreement (Ex. 1027) as business confidential
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), and for it to be kept separate from
`the patent file in this proceeding, is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(a), and this proceeding is terminated with respect to both Petitioner
`and Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner:
`Jason R. Mudd
`Eric A. Buresh
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Roshan Mansinghani
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Patent Owner:
`David R. Bennett
`dbennett@directionip.com
`
`3
`
`
`
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
