Samsung Display Co., Ltd.v.Gold Charm LimitedDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 4, 201608791612 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2016) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 4, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD., and TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GOLD CHARM LIMITED, Patent Owner. _______________ Case IPR2015-01469 Patent 5,870,163 _______________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. JUDGMENT AND FINAL WRITTEN DECISION 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) IPR2015-01469 Patent 5,870,163 2 Petitioner requested an inter partes review of claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,163 (“the ʼ163 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition”). The Board granted the Petition and instituted an inter partes review of claims 1 and 5. Paper 12. On March 29, 2016, Patent Owner’s counsel notified the Board and Petitioner’s counsel that Patent Owner decided not to file a response to the Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120. On March 30, 2016, Patent Owner’s counsel additionally confirmed to the Board and Petitioner’s counsel that Patent Owner’s decision not to file a response to the Petition should be treated as an abandonment of the contest and, therefore, a request for adverse judgment. A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner has requested to abandon the contest, which would be construed as a request for adverse judgment even apart from Patent Owner’s explicit request for adverse judgment. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of claims 1 and 5 of the ʼ163 patent are appropriate. Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment is granted. ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that adverse judgment against the Patent Owner is entered under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b); FURTHER ORDERED that this constitutes a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a); and IPR2015-01469 Patent 5,870,163 3 FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1 and 5 of the ’163 patent be CANCELLED.1 For PETITIONER: Jay I. Alexander Andrea G. Reister COVINGTON & BURLING LLP jalexander@cov.com areister@cov.com Steven B. Kelber Marc R. Labgold THE LAW OFFICES OF MARC R. LABGOLD, P.C. skelber@labgoldlaw.com mlabgold@labgoldlaw.com Paul T. Meiklejohn Clinton L. Conner Adam Floyd DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP meiklejohn.paul@dorsey.com conner.clint@dorsey.com floyd.adam@dorsey.com 1 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.80 (indicating that after the Board issues a final written decision in an inter partes review proceeding, the Office will issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable). IPR2015-01469 Patent 5,870,163 4 For PATENT OWNER: Aaron R. Ettelman Jeffrey W. Gluck John D. Simmons Frederick A. Tecce Clark A. Jablon Dennis J. Butler Stephen E. Murray PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP aettelman@panitchlaw.com jgluck@panitchlaw.com jsimmons@panitchlaw.com ftecce@panitchlaw.com cjablon@panitchlaw.com dbutler@panitchlaw.com smurray@panitchlaw.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
