Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.v.Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2015

10005090 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12
571-272-7822 Entered: July 28, 2015
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. and STANLEY ELECTRIC CO.,
Petitioner,
v.
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Patent Owner.

_______________

Case IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
Case IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)
_______________

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

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Termination of Proceeding
37 C.F.R. § 42.72
IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)

2
On July 27, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the
instant proceedings pursuant to a settlement agreement. Paper 10.1 The
parties also filed a true copy of their 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 1020.
Additionally, the parties submitted joint requests 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 11.
The instant proceedings are 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 Nos. 6,508,563 and 6,886,956. The parties
allege that they have settled their dispute and have agreed to jointly
terminate the instant proceedings. Paper 10, 1.
Upon consideration of the requests before us, we determine that
terminating the instant proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent
Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes
unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to
enter judgment.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate IPR2015-00574 and
IPR2015-00575 are granted;
FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceedings are hereby
terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner; and

1 The parties filed identical papers in the captioned cases. For ease of
reference, this order references the papers filed in IPR2015-00574.
2 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)

3
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint requests 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), are
granted.

IPR2015-00574 (Patent 6,508,563 B2)
IPR2015-00575 (Patent 6,886,956 B2)

4

PETITIONER:
William H. Mandir
Steven M. Gruskin
SUGHRUE MION PLLC
wmandir@sughrue.com
sgruskin@sughrue.com

PATENT OWNER:

George W. Webb III
AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
gwebb@azalaw.com