Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.v.Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2015

10298367 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
571-272-7822 Entered: May 22, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Patent Owner.

_______________

Case IPR2015-00798
Patent 6,886,956
_______________

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

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Termination of Proceeding
37 C.F.R. § 42.72

Case IPR2015-00798
Patent 6,886,956

2
On May 20, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the
instant proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement. Paper 9. The parties
also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement, made in
connection with the termination of the instant proceeding, in accordance
with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exhibit 1016.
Additionally, the parties submitted a joint request 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 7. At the request of the panel, the
parties also filed the order of the district court, dismissing with prejudice the
district court case against Petitioner. Exhibit 1017.
The instant proceeding is in the preliminary stage. The Board has not
determined whether trial will be instituted in the instant request for inter
partes review of US Patent No. 6,886,956. Further, the deadline to file a
patent owner response is almost a month away, and no motions are pending.
The parties submit that termination is appropriate because the parties have
settled their dispute, and the Board has not entered a decision regarding
institution. Paper 9, 2.
Upon consideration of the requests before us, we determine that
terminating the instant proceeding with respect to both Petitioner and Patent
Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes
unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter
judgment.
1
See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.

1
A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
Case IPR2015-00798
Patent 6,886,956

3
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2015-00798 is
granted;
FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is hereby
terminated as to all parties, including Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request 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), is
granted.

Case IPR2015-00798
Patent 6,886,956

4

PETITIONER:
Michael Lennon (Lead counsel)
Clifford Ulrich (Backup counsel)
Michelle Carniaux (Backup counsel)
ptab@kenyon.com

PATENT OWNER:
George W. Webb III (Lead counsel)
gwebb@azalaw.com