Ford Motor Companyv.Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2015

10298367 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
571-272-7822 Entered: October 30, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Petitioner,

v.

INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Patent Owner.

____________

Case IPR2015-01540
Patent 6,886,956 B2

Before LORA M. GREEN, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Termination of Proceeding
37 C.F.R. § 42.72
IPR2015-01540
Patent 6,886,956 B2

2
On authorization from the Board, Petitioner filed, on October 28,
2015, a Joint Motion to Terminate Inter Partes Review. Paper 8. Petitioner
also filed a written settlement agreement, made in connection with the
termination of the instant proceedings, in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
§ 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exhibit 1015. Additionally, the parties
submitted a joint request to have their settlement agreement treated as
confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.74(c). Paper 9. The filings convey that the parties have settled their
dispute, that Petitioner will no longer participate in the proceeding, even if
the proceeding is not terminated, and that there are no collateral agreements
or understandings made in connection with the termination. Paper 8, 2. The
parties also state that they “do not foresee any further litigation among them
relating to the Subject Patent.” Id.
The instant proceeding is in the preliminary stage. The Board has not
determined whether trial will be instituted in Petitioner’s requests for inter
partes review of US Patent No. 6,886,956. Upon consideration of the
requests before us, we determine that terminating the instant proceeding with
respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, promotes
efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. 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.
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2015-01540 is
granted;

1 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
IPR2015-01540
Patent 6,886,956 B2

3
FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is hereby
terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the
settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, kept
separate from the patent file, and made available only to Federal
Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of
good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is
granted.
IPR2015-01540
Patent 6,886,956 B2

4
PETITIONER:

Eric A. Buresh (Lead Counsel)
Jason R. Mudd (Back-up Counsel)
Albert F. Harris III (Back-up Counsel)
ERISE IP, P.A.
6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
Overland Park, Kansas 66200
eric.buresh@eriseip.com
jason.mudd@eriseip.com
al.harris@eriseip.com

PATENT OWNER:

George W. Webb III (Lead Counsel)
AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
1221 McKinney, Suite 3460
Houston, TX 77010
gwebb@azalaw.com