PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.v.JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 4, 2014

10893283 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 57
571-272-7822 Entered: June 4, 2014
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2013-00369
Patent 7,107,612 B1
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Termination of Trial
35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
Case IPR2013-00369
Patent 7,107,612 B1

2
On June 2, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate this
proceeding (Paper 55), along with a true copy of their written settlement
agreement (Ex. 2100). The parties indicated in their joint motion that
termination of this proceeding is appropriate because they settled their
dispute involving U.S. Patent No. 7,107,612 B1 (“the ’612 patent”). Paper
55, 2. The parties also indicated that they have resolved the related district
court case involving the ’612 patent. Id. The parties represented that there
are no other pending proceedings involving the ’612 patent. Id.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under
this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint
request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the
merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” We
instituted a trial in this proceeding as to claims 1-13 and 22-27 of the
’612 patent (Paper 16) on December 19, 2013, but we have not decided the
merits of this proceeding.
Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), “[a]ny agreement or
understanding between the parties made in connection with, or in
contemplation of, the termination of a proceeding shall be in writing and a
true copy shall be filed with the Board before the termination of the trial.”
As the parties have filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement,
which encompasses both this proceeding and the related district court case,
we determine that it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding without
rendering a final written decision as to the patentability of claims 1-13 and
22-27 of the ’612 patent. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74.
Case IPR2013-00369
Patent 7,107,612 B1

3
ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to terminate this
proceeding is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.
Case IPR2013-00369
Patent 7,107,612 B1

4
For PETITIONER:

Matthew Kreeger
Brian Ho
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
mkreeger@mofo.com
bho@mofo.com

Michael J. Schallop
Van Pelt, Yi & James LLP
Michael.schallop@ip-patent.com

For PATENT OWNER:

David McPhie
Ben Haber
Irell & Manella LLP
dmcphie@irell.com
bhaber@irell.com