`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: December19, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTERLT, UAB;
`OXYSALES, UAB; AND CORETECH LT, UAB,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`BRIGHT DATALTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510B2)!
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, KEVIN C. TROCK,and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE,Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McSHANE,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Dismissal Prior to Institution of Trial
`35 U.S.C. $ 314
`
`' This Order applies to eachofthelisted cases. Given the similarities of
`issues, we issue one Orderto be docketed in each case. Theparties are not
`authorizedto use this captionstyle.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510 B2)
`
`Pursuantto our authorization, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion
`
`To Terminate And Dismiss /nter Partes Review in each ofthese cases.
`
`IPR2023-00038 (‘*-00038 case”), Paper 18 (“Mot.”); IPR2023-00039
`
`(00039 case”), Paper 19. Petitioner represents that Patent Ownerdoes not
`
`oppose this Motion. Mot.1.
`
`Petitionerfiled the respective petitions, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,257,319 in the -00038 case and U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510 in the -00039
`
`case on October 17, 2022. No preliminary responses haveyet beenfiled, the
`
`Boardhasnotyet reached the merits, and notrials have been instituted.
`
`Petitionerasserts that the petition in the -00038 caseis substantively
`
`identical to IPR2021-01492 (“*-01492 IPR”), which challenges the same
`
`patent on the same grounds.” Mot. 1. Petitioner asserts that it was joined to
`
`IPR2021-01492, and Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing wasrecently
`
`denied, so “Petitioner[] and Patent Ownerare presently parties to two IPRs
`
`challenging the same patent on the same grounds.” /d. Petitioner seeks to
`
`dismiss and terminate the cases becauseit 1s no longer necessary to proceed
`
`under these circumstances and dismissal and termination would be in the
`
`interest ofjudicial economy and would conservethe parties’ and the Board’s
`
`resources.
`
`/d. at2. Petitioner asserts that there is good cause for dismissal
`
`and termination in order to preserve the Board’s andthe parties’ resources
`
`and to further the purposeof inferpartes review challenges.
`
`/d. at 6.
`
`? Weaddressthe papers and issues in the -00038 case hereas representative,
`because the issues are substantially the same in the -00039 case.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510 B2)
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, “[t]he Board may terminate a trial without
`
`rendering a final written decision, where appropriate,” and under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(a), the Board “maygrant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion.”
`
`These casesare at very preliminary stages and the merits have not
`
`been reached. After reviewing the motions, we determine that good cause
`
`has been demonstrated to grant the unopposed motionsfor dismissal under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a) and to terminate the proceedings under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.72.
`
`Accordingly, it 1s:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthatPetitioner’s motions to dismiss are granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthatthese proceedings are hereby terminated.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00038 (Patent 10,257,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00039 (Patent 10,484,510 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`George “Jorde” Scott
`John Heuton
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`theuton@ccrglaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Dunham
`Elizabeth O’Brien
`CHERIAN LLP
`tomd@ruyakcherian.com
`elizabetho@ruyakcherian.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
