View, Inc.v.Sage Electrochromics, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 3, 201509486718 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2015) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 571-272-7822 Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ VIEW, INC., Petitioner, v. SAGE ELECTROCHROMICS, INC., Patent Owner. _______________ IPR2015-00245, Patent 7,193,763 B2; IPR2015-00275, Patent 6,337,758 B1 _______________ Before JAMES B. ARPIN, DAVID C. MCKONE, and JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge. JUDGMENT Termination of the Proceeding 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 IPR2015-00245, Patent 7,193,763 B2; IPR2015-00275, Patent 6,337,758 B1 2 On May 21, 2015, the parties informed the Board that the parties had settled the proceedings and that the parties sought authorization to file a joint motion to terminate the proceedings. On May 22, 2015, we authorized the filing of a joint motion. On June 2, 2015, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72 and 42.74, the parties filed in each proceeding a joint motion to terminate. See IPR2015-00245, Paper 9; IPR2015-00275, Paper 9. In the joint motions, the parties represent that the settlement agreement filed is a true copy and resolves all Patent Office and District Court proceedings between the parties, including related case Sage Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., Case No. 12-6441 (N.D. Cal.), and that no other litigation or proceeding is active or contemplated for the ’763 or ’758 patents. These proceedings were instituted on May 12, 2015, and are at an early stage. Patent Owner has not yet filed a Patent Owner Response. In view of the early stage of these proceedings, and the concurrent settlement of the district court litigation, the Board determines that it is appropriate to terminate the proceedings with respect to both parties. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to enter judgment. 1 Therefore, the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted. The parties also filed joint requests that the settlement agreement (IPR2015-00245, Ex. 1019; IPR2015-00275, Exhibit 1017) be treated as business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). IPR2015-00245, Paper 10; IPR2015-00275, Paper 10. 1 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. IPR2015-00245, Patent 7,193,763 B2; IPR2015-00275, Patent 6,337,758 B1 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties’ joint requests that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file are granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings are terminated. PETITIONER: Joseph Haag joseph.haag@wilmerhale.com Jason Kipnis jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com Owen Allen owen.allen@wilmerhale.com PATENT OWNER: Mehran Arjomand marjomand@mofo.com Erol Basol ebasol@mofo.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation