Facebook Inc.v.Bascom Research, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201510118093 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2015) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 571-272-7822 Entered: February 24, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner, v. BASCOM RESEARCH, LLC, Patent Owner. _______________ Case CBM2014-00138 Patent No. 7,389,241 _______________ Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, NEIL T. POWELL, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge. JUDGMENT Termination of Proceeding 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 Case CBM2014-00138 Patent 7,389,241 2 On February 19, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the instant proceeding. CBM2014-00138, Paper 14. In support of the motion, the parties allege that they have agreed to terminate the proceeding because, in the related district court litigation, the parties stipulated to end the dispute regarding the ’241 patent, and that judgment against the plaintiff was entered. Id. at 23; Exs. 101112. The District Court of the Northern District of California entered judgment on January 5, 2015, wherein the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, i.e., the court ruled that the ’241 patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex. 1010. The parties filed a copy of the Stipulation, which the parties contend constitutes the written agreement required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Ex. 1012. For example, the Stipulation states that “Bascom agrees not to appeal the judgment in this [district court] action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,” and that “Facebook agrees to submit appropriate papers to the PTAB to request the dismissal as moot of the pending Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the ’241 patent.” Id. at 2. Upon consideration of the request before us, terminating the instant proceeding promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. In particular, there is no remaining public interest in a determination of patentability of the ’241 patent because Patent Owner has agreed not to appeal the ruling of invalidity by the district court. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.1 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. 1 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Case CBM2014-00138 Patent 7,389,241 3 Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate CBM2014-00138 is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties. Case CBM2014-00138 Patent 7,389,241 4 PETITIONER: Heidi L. Keefe Andrew C. Mace Mark Weinstein COOLEY LLP hkeefe@cooley.com amace@cooley.com mweinstein@cooley.com zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com PATENT OWNER: Aldo Noto Sean Wooden ANDREWS KURTH, LLLP aldonoto@andrewskurth.com seanwooden@andrewskurth.com DCIPDocketing@andrewskurth.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
