`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Oracle Corporation
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Clouding IP, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00261
`
`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
`
`IPR2013-00261, which is directed to Patent 6,738,799 (the “’799 Patent”).
`
`This inter partes review has not been instituted. Oracle filed its petition for
`
`inter partes review on May 2, 2013. Clouding has not filed a preliminary response,
`
`and one is not due until August 3, 2013. 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.”
`
`Here, no decision instituting trial and 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.
`Rackspace
`Hosting, Inc.
`Clouding IP,
`LLC v.
`Google, Inc.
`Clouding IP,
`LLC v.
`Amazon.com
`Inc.
`
`
`
`Defendants
`Docket No. Court
`1-12-cv-00675 DED Rackspace Hosting Inc.
`Jungle Disk, Inc.
`Rackspace US, Inc.
`
`Status
`Pending
`
`1-12-cv-00639 DED Google, Inc.
`
`Pending
`
`1-12-cv-00641 DED Amazon.com, Inc.
`Amazon Web Services,
`LLC
`
`Pending
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, if
`
`necessary. Patent Owner notes, however, that in the absence of Petitioner, it is
`
`unclear how these proceedings could properly proceed. In the event the Board does
`
`not terminate the present proceedings, Patent Owner objects to the use of the
`
`testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, whether as grounds for institution of the
`
`proceedings or otherwise, as Patent Owner was not present or represented at the
`
`taking of such testimony and has not had and will not have any opportunity to
`
`cross-examine said declarant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`(Settlement Agreement filed electronically via the Patent Review Processing
`System (PRPS) as “Parties and Board Only”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Oracle Corporation
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Clouding IP, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00261
`
`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, no motions or other matters are outstanding, 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 create an environment in which the Patent Owner cannot
`
`properly defend the patent at issue. For example, Petitioner will not hereafter be
`
`making its declarants for cross-examination. Faced these with circumstances,
`
`patent owners would have little, if any, reason to enter into compromises of the
`
`kind reached between the present parties as they would still face the jeopardies and
`
`costs associated with such proceedings without being able to avail themselves of
`
`the benefits of same.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, 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 and in enacting the applicable law Congress did not
`
`intend in such circumstances that the PTAB would step into the shoes of the
`
`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
`
`1 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`(“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
`
`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, this role has been fully discharged and termination of the proceedings
`
`is justified.
`
`Finally, although 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) affords the Board discretion to
`
`terminate proceedings or proceed to a final written decision when no petitioner
`
`remains in the proceedings, such a final written decision is authorized only after a
`
`review proceeding has been instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Where, as here, no
`
`review proceeding has been instituted, termination is appropriate. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`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 the Patent Owner has not even presented its evidence. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107(c). Thus, 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 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) in such
`
`circumstances would, therefore, seem to present many obstacles and has the
`
`potential to be manifestly unfair.
`
` 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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