`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`ZYNGA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00171
`U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251
`___________________________
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING AND TO FILE
`
`SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL
`
`INFORMATION
`
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, Patent Owner
`
`Personalized Media Communications LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PMC”) and
`
`Petitioner Zynga, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Zynga”) (collectively, “the Parties”) jointly
`
`request termination of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251 (“the
`
`’251 patent”), Case No. IPR2013-00171, due to settlement. The Parties further
`
`jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential
`
`information and be kept separate from the files of the ’251 Patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, as provided below.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Petitioner filed its Petition for Inter Partes Review on February 26, 2013
`
`(“Petition”) and Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Patent Owner Response on
`
`May 10, 2013. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a Decision
`
`to Institute Trial on July 25, 2013. Patent Owner filed its Response to the Petition
`
`on October 25, 2013 and, on January 24, 2014, the Petitioner filed its Reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`On January 30, 2014, Patent Owner and the Petitioner reached an agreement
`
`to settle all disputes between them related to all Inter Partes Review proceedings,
`
`the related litigation (described below), and other patents and patent applications
`
`(the “Settlement Agreement”). The Settlement Agreement includes an agreement
`
`between the parties to terminate this Inter Partes Review proceeding and the three
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other related Inter Parties Review proceedings (“IPRs”).1 The Settlement
`
`Agreement has been made in writing and involves all parties to the litigation and
`
`the real parties-in-interest to this proceeding.
`
`The day after settlement, January 31, 2014, the Parties contacted the Board
`
`to request authorization to file termination papers and to request that the Settlement
`
`Agreement be maintained as business confidential information. The Board ordered
`
`a teleconference that was conducted on Tuesday, February 4, 2014, with both
`
`Parties in attendance. During the call, the Board authorized the filing of this
`
`motion including an explanation on why termination is appropriate in this case.
`
`The Board vacated all IPR due dates so that termination papers could be filed and
`
`considered.
`
`II. Request to Terminate and Treat Settlement Agreement as Confidential
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s instructions, this joint motion to terminate is being
`
`filed prior to the close of business on Friday, February 7, 2014.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.74(c), a true copy of the Settlement Agreement is
`
`attached hereto as an exhibit to this joint motion, and is being filed electronically
`
`via the PRPS as “Parties and Board Only.” See Order for Conduct of the
`
`Proceedings, Feb. 4, 2014. The Parties request that the Settlement Agreement be
`
`
`1 The three related IPRs are IPR2013-00162 (U.S. Patent No. 7,908,638); IPR2013-
`00164 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,797,717); and IPR2013-00156 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,860,131).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`maintained as business confidential information and be kept separate from the files
`
`of the ’251 Patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. See also 37 U.S.C. § 317(b).
`
`1. Reasons Why Termination Is Appropriate
`
`Termination is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) because: (1) the Parties are
`
`jointly requesting termination; (2) the Board does not have before it full briefing on
`
`the issues raised during the trial;2 and (3) the Board has not yet “decided the merits
`
`of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” See, e.g., Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). As the
`
`Board states in its Order for Conduct of the Proceeding, “[g]enerally, the Board
`
`expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement.”
`
`See Order for Conduct of the Proceedings, Feb. 4, 2014. Indeed, termination of
`
`this case will save the Parties and the Board costs and time that can be put to other
`
`use. Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that termination of this
`
`proceeding is proper under § 317(a).
`
`
`2 Under the Scheduling Order issued by the Board on July 25, 2013, the Parties
`would have the right to provide additional briefing for consideration by the Board
`on a number of issues before the Board would make a decision on merits of the
`proceeding. For example, the Parties have the right to file by March 24, 2014,
`motions to exclude evidence based on prior objections. Furthermore, the Parties
`have the right to file Oppositions to the Motion(s) to Exclude and the Patent Owner
`could file its Response to Petitioner’s Observations, all by March 30, 2014. By
`April 7, 2014, the Parties would be filing Reply briefs for their respective Motions
`to Exclude.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Status of Related Litigation
`
`The ’251 Patent was asserted in a patent infringement action before the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Personalized Media
`
`Communications LLC v. Zynga, Inc., 2-12-CV-68, along with U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,908,638, U.S. Patent No. 7,797,717, and U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131. Prior to
`
`trial, PMC agreed to dismiss its claims of infringement of the asserted claims of the
`
`’251 Patent. A trial was held from November 12, 2013 to November 19, 2013 as
`
`to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,638, and 7,797,717 and judgment was entered in favor of
`
`Zynga, Inc. based on the jury’s finding of no infringement. A directed verdict for
`
`those two patents was entered by the Court in favor of the PMC as to the issue of
`
`validity. The judgment is not being appealed.
`
`3.
`
`Identification of Parties in Related Litigation
`
`There are no additional parties in the identified related litigation.
`
`4.
`
` Settlement Agreement should be Confidential & Held Separate
`
`By its own terms, the Settlement Agreement is confidential to the Parties and
`
`is not to be disclosed to third parties without consent of the other party.
`
`Furthermore, the Settlement Agreement is a global settlement agreement that
`
`addresses matters going well beyond the issues presented in this IPR. For at least
`
`these reasons, treatment of the Settlement Agreement as business confidential
`
`information to be held separate from the files for this IPR is proper.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner and Petitioner jointly request that
`
`the Board terminate this Inter Partes Review proceeding and that the Settlement
`
`Agreement filed with this motion be kept confidential and be kept separate from
`
`the files of the ’251 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By /Thomas J. Scott, Jr./
`Thomas J. Scott, Jr.
` Registration No.: 27,836
`Stephen T. Schreiner
` Registration No.: 43,097
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 346-4000
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`By /David B. Cochran/
`David B. Cochran
` Registration No.: 39,142
`Joseph M. Sauer
` Registration No.: 47,919
`JONES DAY
`North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114
`(216) 586-3939
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`