`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`Entered: April 27, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01034
`Patent 5,894,506
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034
`Patent 5,894,506
`
`
`On April 22, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the
`instant proceedings pursuant to a settlement agreement. IPR2014-01034,
`Paper 13. 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 2006. 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 14.
`The instant proceeding is in its early trial stage, before the due date for
`patent owner’s response. The motion is unclear as to whether Petitioner will
`not participate further in the proceeding regardless of whether the panel
`grants the motion to terminate. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that
`termination as to Petitioner is proper as we have not decided the merits of
`the proceeding.
`Patent Owner filed separately, as Exhibit 2007, additional and lengthy
`arguments as to why it would be appropriate for the panel to terminate the
`proceeding as to Patent Owner. Those arguments should have been
`presented in the body of the motion, not as an attachment to the motion, as
`the arguments form part of the full statement of the reasons for the relief
`requested in a motion to terminate. See 37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2). Therefore,
`the arguments will not be considered.
`Upon consideration of the request before us, giving strong preference
`for settlements early in the proceeding and that no further disputes with
`Petitioner remain, terminating the instant proceedings with regard to both
`Petitioner and Patent Owner promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034
`Patent 5,894,506
`
`costs. Based on the posture of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.1
`See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2014-01034 is
`
`granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is hereby
`terminated as to the parties: Petitioner and Patent Owner; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the
`settlement and agreement be treated as business confidential information
`kept separate from the patent file, and made available only as provided by
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.
`
`
`
`1 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034
`Patent 5,894,506
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`For Apple Inc.:
`W. Karl Renner
`Thomas Rozylowicz
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf@fr.com
`IPR39521-0003IP2@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`Craig Jepson
`REED & SCARDINO LLP
`cjepson@reedscardino.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4