`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01036
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`____________
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-001036
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.
`
`(“T-Mobile” or Petitioner) and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) (jointly, the “Parties”) jointly request termination of IPR2014-
`
`01036, which is directed to U.S. Patent No. 5,915,210 (the “’210 Patent”).
`
`On June 27, 2014, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Apple IPR” – which is the above-captioned Inter Partes Review, i.e.,
`
`IPR2014-01036) before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the
`
`Board”). Patent Owner’s preliminary response was filed on October 24, 2014. On
`
`January 22, 2015, the Board issued a Decision to Institute inter partes review of
`
`the ’210 Patent in the Apple IPR. Paper 9.
`
`On October 3, 2014, T-Mobile filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (“T-
`
`Mobile IPR”) before the Board (assigned IPR2015-00015). Patent Owner’s
`
`preliminary response was filed on January 20, 2015 in the T-Mobile IPR. On April
`
`8, 2015, the Board issued a Decision to Institute inter partes review of the ’210
`
`Patent in the T-Mobile IPR and to join the Apple IPR and T-Mobile IPR (“Joined
`
`Inter Partes Review” – which is also the above-captioned Inter Partes Review,
`
`i.e., IPR2014-01036). Paper 13 of the T-Mobile IPR, i.e., IPR2015-00015. See
`
`also, paper 15 of the Apple IPR, i.e., IPR2014-01036.
`
`On April 22, 2015, Apple and Patent Owner filed a Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate with respect to Apple, paper 13. On April 27, 2015, the Board issued a
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-001036
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`decision granting the Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to Apple, paper 16.
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not filed a response, and one is not due (by stipulation of
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, paper 12) until June 21, 2015. No final written
`
`decision on the merits of this inter partes review proceeding has been entered. The
`
`Parties have settled their dispute, and have reached agreement to terminate this
`
`inter partes review.
`
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing
`
`of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Board authorized the filing of the
`
`instant Motion in an email dated May 19, 2015. IPR2013-00428, Paper No. 56
`
`provides guidance as to the content of a motion to terminate. There, the Board
`
`indicates that a joint motion, such as this one, should (1) include a brief
`
`explanation as to why termination is appropriate; (2) identify all parties in any
`
`related litigation involving the patents at issue, and the status of each; and (3)
`
`identify any related proceedings currently before the Office. IPR2013-00428,
`
`Paper No. 56 at 2. This Motion satisfies each of the above requirements.
`
`Indeed, the Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement, and a true
`
`copy of the same is attached hereto as Exhibit 2003, as required by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-001036
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).1 The Parties desire that the Settlement
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`Agreement (Exhibit 2003) 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.
`
`1. Reasons Why Termination is Appropriate.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this
`
`chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of
`
`the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the
`
`proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” With respect to T-Mobile,
`
`termination is appropriate because a final written decision has not been reached in
`
`this Review. Indeed, Patent Owner has not yet filed its Response, nor has T-
`
`Mobile filed responsive papers. Termination of this proceeding with respect to T-
`
`Mobile is further appropriate because, if this Motion is granted, T-Mobile will not
`
`be participating as a party in this proceeding going forward. To this point, the
`
`Parties have settled their dispute and executed the earlier-referenced Settlement
`
`Agreement to terminate this proceeding as to T-Mobile, as well as the Parties’
`
`related district court litigation. The Parties agree that this district court litigation
`
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement is being filed electronically via the Patent Review
`
`Processing System (PRPS) as “Board Only.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-001036
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`will be dismissed per the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. For all these reasons, the
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`Parties respectfully request termination of this proceeding with respect to T-
`
`Mobile.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner, T-Mobile, does not oppose Patent Owner in seeking
`
`termination of this inter partes review proceeding altogether.
`
`Because § 317(a) indicates that the USPTO is not required to terminate an
`
`inter partes review when no petitioner remains in the proceeding, Patent Owner
`
`provides its own additional 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 2004.
`
`2. All parties in any pending related litigation involving the patents at
`issue, and current status of each such related litigation.
`
`
`
`Petitioner is not involved in any other pending related litigations involving
`
`the ’210 Patent. Other parties involved in litigations related to the ’210 Patent are
`
`identified in the table that follows.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-001036
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`
`Case Name
`Mobile
`Telecommunicationas
`Technologies, LLC v.
`Leap Wireless
`Intrernational, Inc.
`and Cricket
`Communications,
`Inc.
`Mobile
`Telecommunicationas
`Technologies, LLC v.
`AT&T Mobility LLC
`and AT&T Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Case No. Court
`No. 2:13-
`E.D.
`cv-00885-
`TX.
`JRG-RSP
`
`Defendants
`Leap Wireless
`Intrernational,
`Inc. and Cricket
`Communications,
`Inc.
`
`Status
`On-going;
`Claim
`construction
`hearing held
`March 23,
`2015.
`
`2:14-CV-
`897-RSP
`
`ED.
`Tex.
`
`AT&T Mobility
`LLC and AT&T
`Inc.
`
`Scheduling
`Conf. held
`March 20,
`2015.
`
`
`
`3. Related proceedings currently before the Office and Status.
`
`Aside from this inter partes review proceeding, the ’210 Patent is also the
`
`subject of the following proceeding(s) currently before the Office:
`
`Related Proceeding Requestor/Petitioner
`IPR2015-00015
`T-Mobile
`
`Status
`Joined with this proceeding
`IPR2014-01036
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-001036
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/John R. Kasha/
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel. 703-867-1886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Pierre J. Hubert/
`Pierre J. Hubert (Reg. 45,826)
`Lead Counsel for T-Mobile
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel. 512-692-8700
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(f), a copy of Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate Proceeding Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 filed by the Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC on May 19, 2015 was duly served via
`
`electronic mail upon 01048-21IP210@McKoolSmith.com - counsel of record for
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/John R. Kasha/
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel. 703-867-1886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`