Axure Software Solutions, Inc.v.iRiseDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201510762428 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2015) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 571-272-7822 Date Entered: June 22, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ AXURE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. iRISE, INC., Patent Owner. ____________ Cases CBM2015-00083 (Patent 7,349,837 B2) CBM2015-00084 (Patent 7,349,837 B2)1 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge. JUDGMENT Termination Pursuant to Settlement 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71, 42.73, 42.74 1 This order addresses issues that are identical in the two cases. We exercise discretion to issue one order to be filed in each of the two cases. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading. CBM2015-00083 (Patent 7,349,837 B2) CBM2015-00084 (Patent 7,349,837 B2) 2 On June 18, 2015, Petitioner Axure Software Solutions, Inc. and Patent Owner iRISE, Inc. (“iRISE”) filed a joint motion to terminate the respective case. Paper 12. Along with the motion, the parties filed a copy of their settlement agreement, made in connection with the termination of the respective case, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Ex. 2002. The parties also submitted a joint request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and kept separate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 13. For the reasons set forth below, the joint motions to terminate and the joint requests are granted. The Board generally expects that a case “will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. In their joint motions to terminate, the parties indicate that the settlement agreement resolves all disputes between them involving the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,349,837 B2 (“the ’837 patent”). See Paper 12 at 1. These cases are in their initial phase. iRISE has not filed a preliminary response to the respective Petition. The Board has not determined whether to institute inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the facts before us, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate these cases and enter judgment, without rendering either a decision to institute inter partes review or a final written decision. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a), 42.73(a), 42.74. We, therefore, grant the joint motions to terminate. Paper 12. We also determine that the parties have complied with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the files CBM2015-00083 (Patent 7,349,837 B2) CBM2015-00084 (Patent 7,349,837 B2) 3 of the ’837 patent. Thus, we grant the joint requests that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and kept separate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 13. For the foregoing reasons, it is: ORDERED that the joint requests that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and kept separate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (Paper 13) are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate (Paper 12) are granted and these cases are hereby terminated. . CBM2015-00083 (Patent 7,349,837 B2) CBM2015-00084 (Patent 7,349,837 B2) 4 PETITIONER: David W. O’Brien Raghav Bajaj David McCombs HAYES AND BOONE, LLP david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com J. Jason Lang WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Jason.lang@weil.com PATENT OWNER: Ted M. Cannon Amy C. Chun Brenton R. Babcock John W. Holcomb KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2tmc@knobbe.com 2acc@knobbe.com 2brd@knobbe.com 2jwh@knobbe.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation