American Honda Motor Co., Inc.v.Cruise Control Technologies LLC,Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201509310527 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2015) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 10 571-272-7822 Paper No. 30 Date Entered: January 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, Petitioner, v. CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Patent Owner. ____________ Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 ____________ Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Joint Motion to Terminate the Inter Partes Review with Respect to Nissan North America, Inc. 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 2 1. Introduction On December 23, 2014, Cruise Control Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) and Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”) (collectively referred to as “the Parties”), as authorized 1 , filed a Joint Motion to Terminate this inter partes review proceeding with respect to Nissan. Paper 27 (“Joint Motion to Terminate”). Along with the Joint Motion to Terminate, the Parties filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement (Ex. 2000), as well as a joint request (Paper 28) to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). 2. Discussion 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.” The Parties also state the following in the Joint Motion to Terminate: Patent Owner and Nissan respectfully submit that termination is appropriate because they have reached an agreement resolving the dispute involving the patent at issue in the above-captioned Inter Partes Review, it is prior to full briefing on the issues raised in the above-captioned Inter Partes Review, and the Board has not issued a final written decision. Further, Nissan represents that it will no longer participate even if the Board does not terminate its participation in the above captioned Inter Partes Review. That means Nissan will file no further papers. It also will not be participating in any oral argument. Joint Motion to Terminate 1. 1 The motion was authorized via e-mail correspondence from Board personnel on December 19, 2014. Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 3 Upon consideration of the circumstances of this proceeding, the panel has determined to terminate the inter partes review (IPR2014-00289) as to Nissan. 3. Order It is ORDERED that, as was requested timely by the Parties (Paper 28), the settlement agreement (Exhibit 2000) will be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c); and FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate the involvement of Nissan in IPR2014-00289 is granted. Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 4 FOR PETITIONER: John M. Caracappa Tremayne M. Norris STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP jcaracap@steptoe.com tnorris@steptoe.com William H. Mandir SUGHRUE MION PLLC wmandir@sughrue.com Matthew D. Satchwell DLA PIPER LLP (US) matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com Wab Kadaba KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com Matthew J. Moore LATHAM & WATKINS LLP matthew.moore@lw.com FOR PATENT OWNER: John R. Kasha Kelly L. Kasha KASHA LAW LLC john.kasha@kashalaw.com kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation