`571-272-7822
`
`,
`
`Paper 13
`Date: September 22, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD |
`
`HARVEST TRADING GROUP,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`VIREO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00947
`Patent 8,962,685 B2
`
`Before JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, MICHAELJ. FITZPATRICK,
`and ZHENYU YANG,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`" DECISION
`Dismissing Petition Pursuant to Settlement
`37 C.F-R. § 42.71 (a)
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00947
`Patent 8,962,685 B2
`
`Petitioner, Harvest Trading Group,Inc., Inc., filed a Petition to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1—20 of U:S. Patent 8,962,685 B2
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Paper 1. Vireo Systems,Inc. (“Vireo”), the
`
`only party who has appeared as an ownerof the subject patent (see
`
`Paper 11), did notfile a Preliminary Response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313.
`
`On September7, 2016, the parties contacted Board staff by email,
`
`stating that they had settled the dispute set forth in the Petition. The parties
`
`requested a conferencecall “to seek authorization to file a Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate Proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).” Section 317(a) of Title
`
`35 governs settlementof instituted inter partes reviews. 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)
`
`(“An inter partes review instituted under this chapter... .”). It does not
`
`govern settlementprior to institution. Accordingly, at our direction on
`
`September 8, 2016, Board staff sent an email to the parties, informing them
`
`that they were authorizedto file “a joint motion to dismiss the Petition
`
`pursuant to 37 CFR 42.71(a).”
`
`Theparties nonetheless filed a Joint Motion To Terminate Proceeding
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). Paper 12. That Motion is denied, but we grant
`
`relief the parties’ seek, i.e., dismissal of the Petition, pursuant to the Rule we
`
`had directed the parties to file their motion under,i.e., 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (a).
`
`Theparties also filed a copy of the settlement agreement (Ex. 2023)
`
`and, as part of their Motion, they requested that it be treated as business
`
`confidential information and be kept separate from “the files of the IPR and
`
`the involved patent.” Paper 12, 2 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00947
`Patent 8,962,685 B2
`
`§ 42.74(c)). Neither 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) nor 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) provides
`for keeping a settlement agreement separate from the files “of the IPR,” or
`here,the files ofthe dismissed Petition. We grant the reliefthat is
`authorized under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c),! as set forth below.
`
`Accordingly,it is:
`
`. ORDEREDthat the Motion is denied;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthatPetitionis dismissed; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthatthe settlement agreement (Ex. 2023) be
`
`treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the
`files ofU.S. Patent No.8,962,685 B2.
`
`' Section 317(b) of Title 35 does not govern here for the samereason that
`§ 317(a) does not.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00947
`Patent 8,962,685 B2
`
`ForPetitioner:
`
`Raymond Miller
`millerra@pepperlaw.com
`
`Curtis Wadsworth
`wadworc@pepperlaw.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Stephen Hall
`shall@bradley.com
`
`Jake Neu
`jneu@bradley.com
`
`
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
