`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 9
`
`Entered: March 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CLEARFIELD, INC.,
` Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02122 (Patent 8,705,929 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00003 (Patent 7,198,409 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00154 (Patent 7,809,233 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion to Dismiss
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02122 (Patent 8,705,929 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00003 (Patent 7,198,409 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00154 (Patent 7,809,233 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner Clearfield, Inc. and Patent Owner CommScope
`
`Technologies LLP, filed a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding (Paper 71)
`
`and a Joint Motion to Treat Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential
`
`Information (Paper 8) in each of the above-captioned cases. The parties
`
`represent that they have reached a settlement agreement, which is in writing
`
`and a true copy of which has been filed in conjunction with the above
`
`motions as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Paper 7, 1–2; Ex. 1015.
`
`The parties also certify that no other agreements exist between the parties
`
`concerning these cases or the patents at issue. Id.
`
`We construe each Joint Motion to Terminate as a motion to dismiss
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a) because no inter partes review has yet been
`
`instituted in these cases. At this early stage, we determine that dismissal is
`
`warranted in light of the parties’ joint requests and their settlement
`
`agreement. We further determine that the settlement agreement filed by the
`
`parties constitutes business confidential information. Therefore, the parties’
`
`joint motions discussed above are granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 All citations herein are to the record in IPR2017-02122. Similar filings
`were made in each of the above-captioned cases.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02122 (Patent 8,705,929 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00003 (Patent 7,198,409 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00154 (Patent 7,809,233 B2)
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the parties joint motion to dismiss in each of the
`
`above-captioned cases is granted, and each case is dismissed; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Treat
`
`Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information in each of the
`
`above-captioned cases is granted, and Exhibit 1015 in Case IPR2017-02122,
`
`Ex. 1011 in Case IPR2018-00003, and Ex. 1013 in Case IPR2018-00154
`
`shall be kept separate from the pertinent file consistent with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.74(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02122 (Patent 8,705,929 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00003 (Patent 7,198,409 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00154 (Patent 7,809,233 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William D. Belanger
`Andrew W. Schultz
`belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`schultza@pepperlaw.com
`BN_IPR-Clearfield@pepperlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Philip P. Caspers
`Matthew J. Goggin
`Timothy A. Lindquist
`Samuel A. Hamer
`pcaspers@carlsoncaspers.com
`mgoggin@carlsoncaspers.com
`tlindquist@carlsoncaspers.com
`shamer@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`4
`
`