`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Zond, LLC, Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. 2014-00446
`
`
`___________________________
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
` PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, Patent Owner Zond LLC
`
`
`
`(“Patent Owner”) and Petitioner Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) (collectively, “the
`
`Parties”) jointly request termination of Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00446,
`
`involving claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48 and 50 of U.S. Patent 7,147,759.
`
`The Parties have settled all of their disputes involving the following patents
`
`U.S. Patents Nos. 6,805,779 B2 (the “‘779 patent”), 6,806,652 B1 (the “‘652
`
`patent”), 6,853,142 B2 (the “‘142 patent”), 7,147,759 (the “‘759 patent”),
`
`7,604,716 B2 (the “‘716 patent”), 7,808,184 B2 (the “‘184 patent”), and 7,811,421
`
`B2 (the “‘421 patent”). More specifically, the Parties have agreed to settle and
`
`dismiss their related district court litigation (1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel
`
`Corp.)). The Parties have also agreed to jointly request termination of this
`
`proceeding and all IPRs filed by Intel for the above listed patents1.
`
`Zond patent
`‘759 patent
`
`‘184 patent
`
`‘421 patent
`
`Intel IPRs relating to patent
`IPR2014-00443
`IPR2014-00444
`IPR2014-00445
`IPR2014-00446
`IPR2014-00447
`IPR2014-00455
`IPR2014-00456
`IPR2014-00468
`IPR2014-00470
`IPR2014-00473
`
`
`1 The Parties are submitting a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding in each of the
`
`IPRs filed by Intel in the above identified patents.
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`‘142 patent
`
`‘716 patent
`
`‘779 patent
`
`‘652 patent
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`IPR2014-00494
`IPR2014-00495
`IPR2014-00496
`IPR2014-00497
`IPR2014-00498
`IPR2014-00520
`IPR2014-00521
`IPR2014-00522
`IPR2014-00523
`IPR2014-00598
`IPR 2014-00686
`IPR 2014-00765
`IPR 2014-00820
`IPR 2014-00913
`IPR2014-00843
`IPR2014-00923
`IPR 2014-00945
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), the Parties’ settlement agreement and any
`
`collateral agreements made in contemplation of termination of the proceeding are
`
`in writing, and true and correct copies of such documents are being filed as Exhibit
`
`1035 in related proceeding IPR 2014-00443.
`
`The Parties hereby jointly request that the settlement related agreements be
`
`treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the files of
`
`the above captioned IPR pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Petitioner filed several requests for Inter Partes Review, as summarized
`
`above. The Board has instituted Inter Partes Review on all challenged claims of
`
`the ‘759, ‘421, and ‘184 patents, and has not issued a decision on institution
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`regarding the remaining patents. Specifically, a trial was instituted in the
`
`following IPRs:
`
`Zond patent
`‘759 patent
`
`‘184 patent
`
`‘421 patent
`
`Intel IPRs relating to patent
`IPR2014-00443
`IPR2014-00444
`IPR2014-00445
`IPR2014-00446
`IPR2014-00447
`IPR2014-00455
`IPR2014-00456
`IPR2014-00468
`IPR2014-00470
`IPR2014-00473
`
` Decision on institution has not yet been ordered for the following IPRs:
`
`Zond patent
`‘142 patent
`
`‘716 patent
`
`‘779 patent
`
`‘652 patent
`
`Intel IPRs relating to patent
`IPR2014-00494
`IPR2014-00495
`IPR2014-00496
`IPR2014-00497
`IPR2014-00498
`IPR2014-00520
`IPR2014-00521
`IPR2014-00522
`IPR2014-00523
`IPR2014-00598
`IPR 2014-00686
`IPR 2014-00765
`IPR 2014-00820
`IPR 2014-00913
`IPR2014-00843
`IPR2014-00923
`IPR 2014-00945
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`On September 4, 2014, the Parties agreed to settle all of their disputes
`
`involving U.S. Patent Nos. 6,805,779 B2, 6,806,652 B1, 6,853,142 B2, 7,147,759
`
`B2, 7,604,716 B2, 7,808,184 B2, and 7,811,421 B2, including all litigation and
`
`Patent Office proceedings related thereto.
`
`On September 4, 2014, the Parties informed the Board of the settlement and
`
`requested a phone conference with the Board requesting authorization to file a joint
`
`motion to terminate the proceeding with respect to both the Patent Owner and the
`
`Petitioner. In a conference call with the Board on September 8, 2014, the Parties
`
`confirmed that settlement had been reached.
`
`As more fully set forth in the Order for Conduct of the Proceedings,
`
`September 9, 2014 (Paper 16 of IPR2014-00443) (“Order”), the Board authorized
`
`the filing of the requested joint motion to terminate this proceeding as to both
`
`parties.
`
`II. Termination as to Patent Owner and Petitioner Is Appropriate
`
`
`
`A. The following is a brief explanation as to why termination as to the
`
`Parties is appropriate which is presented by both parties.
`
`
`
`Termination of this IPR is appropriate as the Board has not yet “decided the
`
`merits of the proceeding” on several of the proceedings noted above. See, e.g.,
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`For those IPRs which have been instituted, no initial conference has occurred and
`
`the post-decision on institution trial process has yet to commence.
`
`
`
`Notably, no dispute remains between the Patent Owner and the Petitioner
`
`involving U.S. Patent Nos. 6,805,779 B2, 6,806,652 B1, 6,853,142 B2, 7,147,759
`
`B2, 7,604,716 B2, 7,808,184 B2, and 7,811,421 B2:
`
`i.
`
`the Parties have agreed to jointly request termination of all of the
`
`IPRs Intel filed concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,805,779 B2,
`
`6,806,652 B1, 6,853,142 B2, 7,147,759 B2, 7,604,716 B2,
`
`7,808,184 B2, and 7,811,421 B2; and,
`
`ii.
`
`the litigation between the Parties involving the same patents is
`
`being dismissed as part of the settlement.
`
`B. The Patent Owner, for itself only, offers additional reasons as to why the
`
`IPR proceedings should be terminated2:
`
`Because the merits of any of the IPRs have not been determined and the
`
`IPRs are therefore at a very early stage, concluding these IPR proceedings
`
`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
`
`
`2 Intel takes no position on these additional reasons.
`- 5 -
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`Patents,” Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg., no. 157, p. 48680 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012).
`
`By permitting termination of IPR proceedings as to all parties upon settlement, the
`
`PTAB provides certainty as to the outcome of these proceedings. Terminating IPRs
`
`upon settlement fosters an environment that promotes settlements, thereby 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 who enacted the American Invents Act (AIA). In enacting the AIA,
`
`Congress did not intend 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 this significant change 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
`
`taken 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
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`
`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
`
`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 comments 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
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`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,
`
`the Board’s role has been fully discharged and termination of the proceedings is
`
`justified.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`III. Status of Related Litigation
`
`
`
`As noted above, the related district court action between Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner has been settled and is being dismissed.
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`IV. Treat Settlement Agreements as Business Confidential Information
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner hereby request that the Settlement Agreement
`
`and the License Agreement filed as Exhibit 1035 in related proceeding IPR 2014-
`
`00443 be treated as business confidential information, be kept separate from the
`
`file of the above captioned IPR, and be 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`
`
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner and Petitioner jointly request that
`
`the Board terminate this Inter Partes Review proceeding as to both Parties, and
`
`treat the settlement related agreements filed as Exhibit 1035 in related proceeding
`
`IPR2014-00443 as business confidential information and keep those agreements
`
`separate from the file of the above captioned IPR.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By /Gregory J. Gonsalves/
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Registration No.: 43635
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`571-419-7252
`Counsel for Zond LLC.
`
`By /David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No.: 36,476
`WILMER HALE LLP
`Counsel for Intel Corp.
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`It is hereby certified that on this 12 day of September, 2014, a copy of the
`
`foregoing document was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Registration No.: 43635
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`571-419-7252
`Counsel for Zond LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No.: 36,476
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00272US4
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2014-00446
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`JOINT REQUEST TO KEEP PAPER SEPARATE
`AS BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`Concurrently with the filing of this Request, the Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`are filing a Joint Motion to Terminate this inter partes review due to a settlement
`
`between the parties. A true copy of the parties’ written settlement agreement is
`
`being filed concurrently as Exhibit No. 1035 in related proceeding IPR 2014-
`
`00443. The settlement agreement contains business confidential information, and
`
`the parties hereby request that the settlement agreement be kept as a separate paper
`
`to be made available only under the provisions of 35 U.S.C § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.74(c). In view of that request the settlement agreement has been filed in
`
`related proceeding IPR 2014-00443 for access by the “Parties and Board Only.”
`
`Dated: September 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By /Gregory J. Gonsalves/
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Registration No.: 43635
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`571-419-7252
`Counsel for Zond LLC.
`
`By /David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No.: 36,476
`WILMER HALE LLP
`Counsel for Intel Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759
`IPR2014-00446
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`It is hereby certified that on this 12 day of September, 2014, a copy of the
`
`foregoing document was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Registration No.: 43635
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`571-419-7252
`Counsel for Zond LLC.
`
`
`Date: September 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No.: 36,476
`
`ActiveUS 134803427v.1
`
`
`
`