With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner (collectively referred to as “the Parties”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding (Paper 14, “Joint Motion”) due to settlement.

Patent 7,250,360 B2 The Parties also represent that Exhibit 2028 is a true and correct copy of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” In this case, the Board has instituted review, but has not yet issued a final written decision deciding the merits of the proceeding.

The Board does not have a procedure to serve upon parties a request for access to the Settlement Agreement, and our regulations do not require us to do so.

Patent 7,250,360 B2 ORDERED that the Joint Motion to terminate the proceeding is granted, and IPR2024-00609 is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 2028) be maintained as confidential business information and kept separate from the files of U.S. Patent No. 7,250,360 B2 and made available only in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner (collectively referred to as “the Parties”) filed a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding (Paper 14, “Joint Motion”) due to settlement.

Patent 7,250,360 B2 The Parties also represent that Exhibit 2028 is a true and correct copy of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” In this case, the Board has instituted review, but has not yet issued a final written decision deciding the merits of the proceeding.

The Board does not have a procedure to serve upon parties a request for access to the Settlement Agreement, and our regulations do not require us to do so.

Patent 7,250,360 B2 ORDERED that the Joint Motion to terminate the proceeding is granted, and IPR2024-00609 is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 2028) be maintained as confidential business information and kept separate from the files of U.S. Patent No. 7,250,360 B2 and made available only in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

Document: 20 Page:1_ Filed: 10/29/2024 NOTE:This order is nonprecedential.

GAnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Cross-Appellant 2024-1679, 2024-1680, 2024-1681 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

The parties having so agreed,it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED underFed.

Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court

Document: 20 Page:1_ Filed: 10/29/2024 NOTE:This order is nonprecedential.

GAnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Cross-Appellant 2024-1679, 2024-1680, 2024-1681 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

The parties having so agreed,it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED underFed.

Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court

Document: 24 Page:1_ Filed: 10/21/2024 NOTE:This order is nonprecedential.

Anited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Appellee 2024-1799, 2024-1800 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

The parties having so agreed,it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).

Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court October 21, 2024 Date ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 21, 2024

We consider the following nonexclusive factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court ...

We consider the following nonexclusive factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court ...

WHEREAS: (1) Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc. and Defendant Caterpillar Inc., (“the Parties”) have reached a mutually satisfactory resolution of all issues between them that were the subject of this action; and (2) the Parties have caused to be executed on October 8, 2024 a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) resolving those issues; subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Parties jointly request and stipulate to the entry of an Order providing that:

All claims and counterclaims asserted by and between the Parties are dismissed with prejudice; and

Each of the Parties shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: October 9, 2024 11818987 / 11898.00005 SO ORDEREDthis 9th day of October , 2024.

WHEREAS Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Wirtgen America”), and Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Caterpillar Inc. (“Defendant” or “Caterpillar”) have reached an agreement to settle the above-captioned action (“Action”); WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to the terms of a binding settlement agreement and are presently working on preparing all necessary papers required by the agreement, including appropriate papers to dismiss this Action; and WHEREAS, entry of the Court’s Order of a Permanent Injunction and the Court’s decision on the entry of a Partial Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 54(b) are pending; WHEREAS, deadlines remain pending relating to Caterpillar’s counterclaims for patent infringement against Wirtgen America; WHEREAS, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay entry of any Permanent Injunction, Final Judgment, and further case deadlines while the Parties prepare appropriate papers for dismissal of all claims in this Action; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court, that:

(1)—All judgments, orders, rulings, and case deadlines shall be stayed for 14 days while the Parties prepare appropriate papers for dismissalofall claims in this Action; and

Atthe conclusion of 14 days, the parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissalor shall file a brief update with the Court addressing whetherthe stay of this Action should be continued.

SO ORDEREDthis Ist day of_October , 2024.

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 ...

Before KIMBERLY MCGRAW, JULIA HEANEY, AND MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

Petitioner, Qorvo, Inc., requests leave under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) to file a five-page reply and an associated exhibit to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response to address three issues.

As noted during the conference call, we find Petitioner has shown good cause, and therefore, grant Petitioner’s unopposed request to file a reply to address the Fintiv arguments set forth in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response and to file the identified district court order.

We also grant Petitioner’s request to file a reply to address Patent Owner’s construction of claim 1, steps b) and c), as we determine that

We do not, however, authorize Petitioner to address in its reply brief, Patent Owner’s argument that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date of invention.

It found that Wirtgen proved that Caterpillar willfully infringed five of its patents (the ‘309, ‘641, ‘530, ‘788, and ‘972 Patents) and that none of those patents is invalid.

Caterpillar nonetheless submits that there was insufficient evidence at trial for the jury to find (i) direct infringement by a machine user and (ii) Caterpillar’s specific intent to induce a user’s infringement.

Caterpillar tries to minimize the teardowns in other ways, but none disturb this finding.

Wirtgen America, Inc’s Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 50(b), Or, In the Alternative, A New Trial Pursuant To Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (D.I.

To the extent that the Parties do not agree, neither side may submit more than five pages of double-spaced argument in favor of its proposal, and I will not accept additional, responsive briefs.

On or before October 11, 2024, Caterpillar shall provide to Wirtgen an accounting of Caterpillar’s sales of infringing products through September 30, 2024.

On or before October 18, 2024, Wirtgen shall file a calculation of its updated damages based on the information that it receives from Caterpillar.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties should confer on whether I should enter a partial judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

SO ORDEREDthis 4th dayof September , 2024.