In stipulating to move any due dates in the scheduling order, the parties must be cognizant that the Board requires four weeks after the filing of an opposition to the motion to amend (or the due date for the opposition, if none is filed) for ...

Nonetheless, Petitioner’s stipulation does decrease the overlap in issues and mitigates to a great degree the concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions.

... that for Petitioner relies on Kleve’s “virtual key” as the “coded data” and on Kleve’s “restrictions” as the alleged “privilege settings,” but none the paragraphs in Kleve discussing the “restrictions” disclose the use of a “virtual key” and none ...

See generally Prelim. Resp. 38 IPR2024-01167 Patent 11,738,659 B2 Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability.

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STACEY G. WHITE, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner (collectively referred to as “the Parties”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate due to settlement in each of the above-captioned proceedings.

However, a petitioner can avoid the § 315(b) bar by filing its petition(s) within one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent.

Further, “[t]here are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the parties to a proceeding,” and, thus, “[t]he Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits of the proceeding.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED that each Joint Motion in each of the above-captioned proceedings is granted, and each of the above-captioned proceedings is terminated pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72; and FURTHER ORDERED that each Joint Request to treat the Settlement Agreement as business confidential information in each of the above-captioned proceedings is granted, and each Settlement Agreement shall be kept separate from the files of Patent 8,291,236, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).3

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STACEY G. WHITE, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner (collectively referred to as “the Parties”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate due to settlement in the above-captioned proceeding.

In support of the Joint Motion, the Parties filed a confidential settlement agreement (Ex. 1018 (“Settlement Agreement”)), as well as a Joint Request that Settlement Agreement be Treated as Business Confidential Information (Paper 15 (“Joint Request”)) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.

We determine that good cause exists to treat the Settlement Agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner as business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motion in the above-captioned proceeding is granted, and the above-captioned proceeding is terminated pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request to treat the Settlement Agreement as business confidential information in the above-captioned proceeding is granted, and the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1018) shall be kept separate from the files of Patent 8,667,304, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STACEY G. WHITE, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner (collectively referred to as “the Parties”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate due to settlement in each of the above-captioned proceedings.

However, a petitioner can avoid the § 315(b) bar by filing its petition(s) within one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent.

Further, “[t]here are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the parties to a proceeding,” and, thus, “[t]he Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits of the proceeding.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED that each Joint Motion in each of the above-captioned proceedings is granted, and each of the above-captioned proceedings is terminated pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72; and FURTHER ORDERED that each Joint Request to treat the Settlement Agreement as business confidential information in each of the above-captioned proceedings is granted, and each Settlement Agreement shall be kept separate from the files of Patent 8,291,236, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).3