View, Inc.v.Sage Electrochromics, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2015

10495758 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
571-272-7822 Entered: June 3, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
VIEW, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

SAGE ELECTROCHROMICS, INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

IPR2015-00245, Patent 7,193,763 B2;
IPR2015-00275, Patent 6,337,758 B1
_______________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
JUDGMENT
Termination of the Proceeding
37 C.F.R. § 42.73
IPR2015-00245, Patent 7,193,763 B2;
IPR2015-00275, Patent 6,337,758 B1
2
On May 21, 2015, 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 May 22, 2015, we authorized the
filing of a joint motion. On June 2, 2015, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72 and 42.74, the parties filed in each
proceeding a joint motion to terminate. See IPR2015-00245, Paper 9;
IPR2015-00275, Paper 9. 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 Sage
Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., Case No. 12-6441 (N.D. Cal.), and that
no other litigation or proceeding is active or contemplated for the ’763 or
’758 patents.
These proceedings were instituted on May 12, 2015, and are at an
early stage. Patent Owner has not yet filed a Patent Owner Response. In
view of the early stage of these proceedings, and the concurrent settlement
of the district court litigation, the Board determines that it is appropriate to
terminate the proceedings 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 joint requests that the settlement agreement
(IPR2015-00245, Ex. 1019; IPR2015-00275, Exhibit 1017) be treated as
business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and
37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). IPR2015-00245, Paper 10; IPR2015-00275, Paper 10.

1
A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
of a proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
IPR2015-00245, Patent 7,193,763 B2;
IPR2015-00275, Patent 6,337,758 B1
3
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the parties’ joint requests that the settlement
agreement be treated as business confidential information, to be kept
separate from the patent file are granted;
FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate the
proceedings are granted; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings are terminated.

PETITIONER:
Joseph Haag
joseph.haag@wilmerhale.com

Jason Kipnis
jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com

Owen Allen
owen.allen@wilmerhale.com

PATENT OWNER:
Mehran Arjomand
marjomand@mofo.com

Erol Basol
ebasol@mofo.com