`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 35-2 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRECTED EXHIBIT 18
`CORRECTED EXHIBIT18
`(ATTACHMENT 33-19)
`(ATTACHMENT33-19)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 35-2 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 74
`Entered: October 29, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`DR. MICHAEL FARMWALD and RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00946
`Patent 6,266,518 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 35-2 Filed 09/14/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`IPR2014-00946
`Patent 6,266,518 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On June 12, 2014, Dr. Michael Farmwald and RPX Corporation
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,266,518 B1 (“the ’518 patent”). Paper 1. ParkerVision, Inc.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on September 24, 2014.
`Paper 7. On December 18, 2014, we instituted this inter partes review of
`claims 1, 82, 90, and 91 of the ’518 patent. Paper 8.
`On March 19, 2015, Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition
`(Paper 27), and on June 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 47). The parties requested oral argument (Papers 55, 56),
`which was scheduled for August 27, 2015 (Paper 9, 6).
`On July 31, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in
`unrelated, parallel litigation involving the ’518 patent, found claims 82, 90,
`and 91 invalid. Ex. 2043. In view of the Federal Circuit’s decision, the
`parties requested, and we granted, postponement of the oral argument. See
`Paper 67, 2. Patent Owner indicated that, if the Federal Circuit’s decision
`were upheld, i.e., final, it would request adverse judgment as to all instituted
`claims. Id.
`On October 2, 2015, the Federal Circuit denied Patent Owner’s
`petition for rehearing. Ex. 2044. Subsequently, on October 22, 2015, Patent
`Owner filed a Motion for Adverse Judgment Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)
`requesting cancellation of claims 1, 82, 90, and 91 of the ’518 patent.
`Paper 73, “Mot.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 35-2 Filed 09/14/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`IPR2014-00946
`Patent 6,266,518 B1
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion requests that we cancel claims 1, 82, 90, and
`91, and that we terminate this proceeding because each claim pending in this
`trial will be cancelled. Mot. 1. Patent Owner indicates that Petitioner does
`not oppose Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment. Id.
`A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any
`time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). “Judgment” is defined as
`“a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its
`Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and did not
`explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final
`written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated
`with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(a)).
`Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant
`Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this
`Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1
`
`III. ORDER
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Adverse Judgment Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) (Paper 73) is granted;
`
`
`1 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.80 (indicating that after a final written decision by the
`Board, the Office will issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of
`the patent finally determined to be unpatentable).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 35-2 Filed 09/14/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`IPR2014-00946
`Patent 6,266,518 B1
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Patent Owner
`with respect to claims 1, 82, 90, and 91 of the ’518 patent;
`FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1, 82, 90, and 91 of the
`’518 patent are cancelled; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that any party to the proceeding seeking
`judicial review of this Final Written Decision must comply with the notice
`and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 35-2 Filed 09/14/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`IPR2014-00946
`Patent 6,266,518 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Todd Baker
`CPDocketBaker@oblon.com
`
`James Bailey
`jtb@jtbaileylaw.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Greene Sterne
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Michael Q. Lee
`mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Jason E. Stach
`jason.stach@finnegan.com
`
`Rick D. Nydegger
`rnydegger@wnlaw.com
`
`Byron Pickard
`bpickard-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
