Veeva Systems Inc.v.Prolifiq Software Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2014

13152928 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8
571-272-7822 Entered: December 3, 2014
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
PROLIFIQ SOFTWARE INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

IPR2014-01253 (Patent 7,634,556 B2)
IPR2014-01467 (Patent 8,296,378 B2)
IPR2014-01472 (Patent 7,707,317 B2)
IPR2014-01473 (Patent 7,966,374 B2)
IPR2014-01474 (Patent 8,171,077 B2)
_______________

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
JUDGMENT
Termination of the Proceeding
37 C.F.R. § 42.73
IPR2014-01253 (Pat. 7,634,556 B2); IPR2014-01467 (Pat. 8,296,378 B2);
IPR2014-01472 (Pat. 7,707,317 B2); IPR2014-01473 (Pat. 7,966,374 B2)
IPR2014-01474 (Pat. 8,171,077 B2)
2
On November 26, 2014, the parties informed the Board that the
parties had settled the proceedings and that the parties sought authorization
to file a joint motion to terminate the proceedings. On December 1, 2014,
and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, the parties filed
in each proceeding a joint motion to terminate. See, e.g., IPR2014-01253,
Paper 10. In the joint motions, the parties represent that the settlement
agreement filed is a true copy and resolves all Patent Office and District
Court proceedings between the parties, including related case Prolifiq
Software, Inc. v. Veeva Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:13-CV-03644-SI (N.D.
Cal.). Id. at 1–2.
These proceedings are at an early stage. Patent Owner has not yet
filed a Preliminary Response and we have not yet instituted a trial. In view
of the early stage of this proceeding, and the concurrent settlement of the
district court litigation, the Board determines that it is appropriate to
terminate the proceeding with respect to both parties. Based on the facts of
these cases, it is appropriate to enter judgment.
1
Therefore, the joint motions
to terminate the proceedings are granted.
The parties also filed in each case a joint request that the settlement
agreement be treated as business confidential information pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). See, e.g., IPR2014-01253,
Paper 11.

1
A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
of a proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
IPR2014-01253 (Pat. 7,634,556 B2); IPR2014-01467 (Pat. 8,296,378 B2);
IPR2014-01472 (Pat. 7,707,317 B2); IPR2014-01473 (Pat. 7,966,374 B2)
IPR2014-01474 (Pat. 8,171,077 B2)
3
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement
agreement be treated as business confidential information, to be kept
separate from the patent file is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate the
proceedings are granted; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings are terminated.

PETITIONER:
Brian C. McCormack
Brian.McCormack@bakermckenzie.com

William D. McSpadden
William.McSpadden@bakermckenzie.com

PATENT OWNER:
Heath Briggs
briggsh@gtlaw.com

Jonathan Ball
ballj@gtlaw.com