`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Oracle Corporation
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Clouding IP, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00073
`
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`____________
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) Petitioner Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) and
`
`Patent Owner Clouding IP, LLC (“Clouding”) jointly request termination of
`
`IPR2013-00073, which is directed to Patent 6,738,799 (the “’799 Patent”).
`
`This inter partes review has been instituted and Clouding filed its response
`
`to Oracle’s petition on June 24, 2013. No final written decision on the merits of
`
`this review proceeding has been entered. The parties have settled their dispute, and
`
`have reached agreement to terminate this inter partes review.
`
`The parties’ Settlement Agreement has been made in writing, and a true
`
`copy of same is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.1 The parties desire that the
`
`Settlement Agreement be maintained as business confidential information under
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.74(c) and a separate joint request to that effect is being filed on
`
`even date herewith.
`
`As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), because Oracle and Clouding jointly
`
`request this termination as to Petitioner Oracle, no estoppel under 35 U.S.C.
`
`315(e) shall attach to Oracle.
`
`
`
`1. Reasons Why Termination is Appropriate.
`
`Termination with respect to Petitioner is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement is being filed electronically via the Patent Review
`
`Processing System (PRPS) as “Parties and Board Only.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`because the parties are jointly requesting termination and the Office has not yet
`
`“decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.”
`
`Within the context of Section 317(a) a decision on the merits must be something
`
`beyond a decision instituting trial. Otherwise the quoted phrase would be rendered
`
`meaningless because every “inter partes review instituted under this chapter”
`
`originates with a decision instituting trial. Here, no decision on the merits has been
`
`made. Accordingly, the parties are entitled to terminate this proceeding as to
`
`Petitioner under Section 317(a) upon their joint request.
`
`Petitioner takes no position on whether this review proceeding should be
`
`terminated with respect to Patent Owner.
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order regarding the Conduct of the Proceeding
`
`dated July 15, 2013, Patent Owner is providing comments as to why termination
`
`with respect to Patent Owner is proper in Patent Owner’s Explanation as to Why
`
`Termination Is Appropriate, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`
`
`2. Related District Court Litigations and Status.
`
`The ‘799 Patent is the subject of the following pending litigations:
`
`Case Name
`Clouding IP,
`LLC v.
`Google, Inc.
`Clouding IP,
`LLC v.
`
`
`
`Defendants
`Docket No. Court
`1-12-cv-00639 DED Google, Inc.
`
`1-12-cv-00641 DED Amazon.com, Inc.
`Amazon Web Services, LLC
`2
`
`
`
`Status
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`
`
`
`
`Amazon.com
`Inc.
`Clouding IP,
`LLC v.
`Rackspace
`Hosting Inc.
`
`
`
`
`1-12-cv-00675 DED Rackspace Hosting, Inc.
`Jungle Disk, LLC
`Rackspace US, Inc.
`
`Pending
`
`3. Future Participation by the Parties.
`
`Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Petitioner Oracle will not further
`
`participate in these proceedings, even if they are not terminated pursuant to this
`
`joint motion. Patent Owner’s participation in any further proceedings would
`
`depend upon the conditions of same and Patent Owner reserves its right to so
`
`participate (including the right to seek exclusion of some or all the testimony of
`
`Petitioner’s declarant), if necessary. Patent Owner notes, however, that in the
`
`absence of Petitioner, it is unclear how these proceedings could properly proceed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`OBLON SPIVAK
`
`
`
`
`
`/Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella (Reg. No. 46,045)
`Scott A. McKeown (Reg. No. 42,866)
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi (Reg. No. 41,042)
`FAHMI, SELLERS, EMBERT &
`DAVITZ
`84 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 550
`San Jose, CA 95113
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`(Settlement Agreement filed electronically via the Patent Review Processing
`
`System (PRPS) as “Parties and Board Only”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Oracle Corporation
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Clouding IP, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00073
`
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXPLANATION
`
`AS TO WHY TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that this proceeding should be terminated
`
`with respect to the Patent Owner because the merits of the petition have not been
`
`determined and concluding these proceedings at this early juncture promotes the
`
`Congressional goal to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system
`
`that, inter alia, limits unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs. See
`
`“Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review
`
`Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents,”
`
`Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg., no. 157, p. 48680 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012). By
`
`permitting termination of review proceedings as to all parties, upon settlement of
`
`their disputes, the PTAB provides a measure of certainty as to the outcome of such
`
`proceedings. This certainty helps foster an environment that promotes settlements,
`
`creating a timely, cost-effective alternative to litigation. In contrast, maintaining
`
`these proceedings in the absence of Petitioner would effectively pit the Patent
`
`Owner against the Board, a scenario never intended by the legislators that enacted
`
`the laws governing these proceedings.
`
`Consider that because termination as to the Petitioner is mandatory upon
`
`joint motion of the parties,1 once that termination is effected there will be no
`
`counter-party in these proceedings. In enacting the applicable law Congress did
`
`not intend in such circumstances that the PTAB would step into the shoes of the
`
`1 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner or assume an ex-parte examination role. Instead, The Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act replaced inter partes reexamination with review proceedings
`
`and entrusted such matters to the Board rather than the examining corps.
`
`Commenting on these marked changes to USPTO practice, Senator Kyl noted that
`
`the new procedures were intended to be strictly adjudicative in nature, where “the
`
`petitioner, rather than the Office, bears the burden of showing unpatentability.”
`
`157 Congressional Record S1375, daily ed. March 8, 2011. As these changes were
`
`borrowed from the Senator’s prior bill from the 110th Congress, S. 3600, he cited
`
`with approval his comments in support of that prior legislation:
`
`"The bill uses an oppositional model, which is favored by
`
`PTO as allowing speedier adjudication of claims. Under a
`
`reexam system, the burden is always on PTO to show that a
`
`claim is not patentable. Every time that new information is
`
`presented, PTO must reassess whether its burden has been
`
`met. This model has proven unworkable in inter partes
`
`reexam, in which multiple parties can present information to
`
`PTO at various stages of the proceeding, and which system
`
`has experienced interminable delays. Under an oppositional
`
`system, by contrast, the burden is always on the petitioner to
`
`show that a claim is not patentable. Both parties present their
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence to the PTO, which then simply decides whether the
`
`petitioner has met his burden. 154 Congressional Record
`
`S9987, daily ed. Sept. 27, 2008 (emphasis added).
`
`Senator Kyl’s comments2 make clear that the new review proceedings were
`
`not intended to devolve into the prior “unworkable” system of reexamination in
`
`the event no petitioner was left. The Board’s role was intended to be that of an
`
`adjudicator resolving a dispute between litigants, not an examiner. See, e.g.,
`
`Statement of Sen. Kyl, 157 Congressional Record S1376, daily ed. March 8, 2011
`
`(“Currently, inter partes reexaminations usually last for 3 to 5 years. Because of
`
`procedural reforms made by the present bill to inter partes proceedings, the Patent
`
`Office is confident that it will be able to complete these proceedings within one
`
`year. Among the reforms that are expected to expedite these proceedings are the
`
`shift from an examinational to an adjudicative model, and the elevated
`
`2 Senator Kyl also explained that although section 316(a)(4) of the then-pending
`
`Patent Reform Act of 2011, S.23, gave the USPTO discretion in prescribing
`
`regulations governing the new proceeding, the USPTO had assured Congress that
`
`it would “use this discretion to convert inter partes into an adjudicative
`
`proceeding.” This change also was effectively compelled by section 316(e) of the
`
`Act, which assigned to a petitioner the burden of proving a proposition of
`
`unpatentability. 157 Congressional Record S1375, daily ed. March 8, 2011.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`threshold for instituting proceedings.”) (emphasis added). In the face of a
`
`negotiated settlement between the parties and the absence of any petitioner in the
`
`proceedings, the Board’s role has been fully discharged and termination of the
`
`proceedings is justified.
`
`When the Rules of Practice for trials before the PTAB were adopted, the
`
`USPTO noted that Section 42.74(a) affords the Board the opportunity to determine
`
`patentability, notwithstanding any settlement between the parties. This rule was
`
`said to be consistent with 35 U.S.C. 135(e), which provides that the Board is not
`
`required to follow a settlement agreement in a derivation proceeding when it is
`
`inconsistent with the evidence. 77 Fed. Reg. no. 157, p. 48625 (Tuesday, August
`
`14, 2012). In the present case, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is not
`
`inconsistent with any evidence. While the parties’ retain their differing views on
`
`validity of the underlying patent, such differences are a hallmark of any resolution
`
`of a dispute prior to its final adjudication.
`
`Moreover, because these proceedings are at such an early stage it is an open
`
`question as to how they could continue in the absence of any petitioner. For
`
`example, any future motions by Patent Owner would be unopposed. As Congress
`
`intended that the Board act solely as an adjudicator, it is unclear how the Board
`
`would, or even could, act on such matters. Proceeding to a final written decision
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) in such circumstances would, therefore, seem to present
`
`many obstacles.
`
`Should the Board decide to continue the present proceedings, the
`
`Congressional goal of speedy dispute resolutions will be chilled. Faced with the
`
`prospect of having to continue to defend a patent, not against a third party
`
`petitioner but against the PTAB, patent owners would have little, if any, reason to
`
`enter into compromises of the kind reached between the present parties. In such
`
`circumstances, patent owners would still face the jeopardies and costs associated
`
`with review proceedings but would be effectively prohibited from availing
`
`themselves of the benefits (for example the cross-examination of witnesses upon
`
`notice) of same.
`
` For at least the foregoing reasons, termination of these proceedings as to the
`
`Patent Owner is respectfully requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi (Reg. No. 41,042)
`FAHMI, SELLERS, EMBERT &
`DAVITZ
`84 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 550
`San Jose, CA 95113
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317
`
`and its exhibits was served on July 19, 2013, by filing this document though
`the Patent Review Processing System as well as delivering a copy via electronic
`mail directed to the attorneys of record for the Petitioner at the following
`address:
`
`Greg Gardella
`Scott McKeown
`Oblon Spivak
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fahmi, Sellers, Embert & Davitz
`84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 550
`San Jose, CA 95113
`
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Fax: 408-773-6177
`Email: patents@fseip.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
