Marroquin et al.v.Marroquin et al. V. Fornage et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2013

12576661 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2013)

NOTICE: "Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral
agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the
interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before
the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding."
35 U.S.C. 135(c) (2012); see also Bd.R. 205 (settlement agreements).

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 65
Telephone: 571-272-4683 ENTERED: 1 November 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Patent Interference No. 105,935

ENPHASE ENERGY, INC.
(13/597,718),
Junior Party,

v.

SOLARBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(8,207,637 and 8,227,942),
Senior Party.

Before: RICHARD E. SCHAFER, RICHARD TORCZON and DEBORAH
KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Bd.R. 127(b)
requested

The board had noted that the involved application and both involved patents
were commonly assigned to the junior party (Enphase) and, hence, placed Enphase
Interference No. 105,935 Page 2

under an order to show cause (Paper 62). In response, Enphase has elected to
request judgment against the senior involved patents (Paper 64). All of the patent
claims correspond to the sole count (Paper 1 at 3). Accordingly, all claims of
8,207,637 and 8,227,942 patents are CANCELED (35 U.S.C. 135(a) (2012)). A
copy of this judgment shall be placed in the administrative records of the involved
application and of both involved patents, respectively.

cc:

ARTHUR E. JACKSON, RAYMOND R. MOSER, JR., and MATTHEW M. YEUNG, Moser
Taboada, of Shrewsbury, New Jersey.

PAUL B. HUNT, GLEN M. KELLETT and JEFFREY T.G. KELSEY, Barnes &
Thornburg, of Indianapolis, Indiana.