`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC. AND TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00687
`Patent 7,765,482
`_____________________
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On May 19, 2015, one party of petitioner, Twitter, and patent owner Summit
`
`6 entered into a settlement agreement. Separately, on May 26, 2015, the other party
`
`of petitioner, Apple, and patent owner Summit 6 entered into a settlement
`
`agreement. Pursuant to the agreements, Summit 6 agreed to dismiss with prejudice
`
`all of its pending patent infringement claims against both Twitter and Apple, which
`
`it has since done. In return, each of Twitter and Apple agreed to move to dismiss
`
`all pending inter partes review proceedings (IPRs) filed by Apple/Twitter against
`
`Summit 6’s patents, including this one.
`
`The Board sent an e-mail on June 8, 2015, authorizing the parties to file a
`
`joint motion to terminate the above-captioned inter partes review, Case No.
`
`IPR2015-00687 (the “Review”). The parties therefore jointly move to terminate the
`
`Review.
`
`As part of the motion, the Board asked the parties to briefly explain why
`
`termination is appropriate, and to provide the Board with a status update of any
`
`related district court litigations involving the ’482 patent, including the status of
`
`each of the defendants. Those sections follow below. The Board also required
`
`submission of a true copy of the Twitter/Summit 6 settlement agreement and the
`
`Apple/Summit 6 settlement agreement. The Twitter/Summit 6 settlement
`
`agreement is filed separately and concurrently with this motion, as Exhibit 1030,
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`
`along with a request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential
`
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Similarly, the Apple/Summit 6 settlement
`
`agreement is also filed separately and concurrently with this motion, as Exhibit
`
`1031, along with a request to treat the settlement agreement as business
`
`confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`WHY TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE
`
`This proceeding is still in its infancy with Patent Owner having only recently
`
`filed its preliminary patent owner response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107.
`
`Termination of this proceeding is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) 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.” The parties
`
`settled their dispute, effective on or about May 19 and 26, 2015, by entering into a
`
`settlement agreement resolving all issues and agreeing to terminate this proceeding
`
`and the related petitions for inter partes review. Based on this agreement, each of
`
`Apple and Twitter withdraw from, and will not participate further in, this
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, Apple/Twitter and Summit 6 jointly request that the
`
`Board terminate this proceeding in its entirety.
`
`Concluding this proceeding at this juncture promotes the Congressional goal
`
`of establishing a more efficient and streamlined patent system that, inter alia,
`
`limits unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs. See Changes to
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`
`Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, p.
`
`48680 (Aug. 14, 2012). By terminating IPR proceedings based upon the parties’
`
`settlement of their disputes, the Board provides litigants a measure of certainty that
`
`promotes settlements and creates a timely and cost-effective alternative to district
`
`court litigation. See also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, p.
`
`48768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“There are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement
`
`between the parties to a proceeding.”).
`
`Both Congress and federal courts have also expressed a strong interest in
`
`encouraging settlement in litigation. See, e.g., Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450
`
`U.S. 346, 352 (1981) (“The purpose of [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 68 is to encourage the
`
`settlement of litigation.”); Bergh v. Dept. of Transp., 794 F.2d 1575, 1577 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1986) (“The law favors settlement of cases.”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 950
`
`(1986). The Federal Circuit places a particularly strong emphasis on settlement.
`
`For example, it endorses the ability of parties to agree to never challenge validity
`
`as part of a settlement. See Flex-Foot, Inc. v. CRP, Inc., 238 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001); see also Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. U.S., 806 F.2d 1046, 1050 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1986) (noting that the law favors settlement to reduce antagonism and hostility
`
`between parties).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Maintaining this Review after Apple and Twitter’s separate settlements with
`
`Summit 6 would discourage future settlements by removing a primary motivation
`
`for settlement: eliminating litigation risk by resolving the parties’ disputes and
`
`ending the pending proceedings between them. For patent owners, litigation risks
`
`include the potential for their patents to be invalidated. If a patent owner knows
`
`that an inter partes review is likely to continue regardless of settlement, it can
`
`create a strong disincentive for the patent owner to settle.
`
`Additionally, it would not be appropriate for the Board to proceed to a final
`
`written decision under section 318(a) in this case. This proceeding is in its infancy.
`
`No trial has yet been initiated. Continuing this proceeding any further will force
`
`the parties to expend unnecessary and counterproductive litigation resources.
`
`Accordingly, petitioner Apple/Twitter and patent owner Summit 6 jointly request
`
`termination of this Review.
`
`STATUS OF RELATED LITIGATION
`
`There are four related district court litigations involving the ’482 patent and
`
`related U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,895,557 and 8,612,515. They are listed below, along with a
`
`complete list of parties and the status of each:
`
` Summit 6 LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. TXND-7-2015-cv-00062 (February 18,
`2014). The defendant is:
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`1.
`
`Twitter, Inc. – The parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order
`to dismiss on May 21, 2015. The case was terminated on May 26,
`2015.
`
` Summit 6 LLC v. Apple Inc., No. TXND-7-14-cv-00106-O (February 18,
`2014). The defendant is:
`
`1.
`
`Apple Inc. – On June 8, 2015, Summit 6 and Apple Inc. filed a Joint
`Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to a settlement agreement between
`the parties.
`
`
` Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corporation et al., No. TXND-7:14-cv-00014-O
`(February 18, 2014). The defendants include:
`
`1.
`
`Apple Inc. – Apple was terminated as a party to this case on
`September 10, 2014 and moved to Case No. TXND-7-14-cv-00106-O.
`HTC America Inc. – On June 1, 2015, Summit 6 and HTC America
`Inc. filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to a settlement
`agreement between the parties.
`HTC Corporation – On June 1, 2015, Summit 6 and HTC America
`Inc. filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to a settlement
`agreement between the parties.
`LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. - The court granted a joint
`motion to dismiss on April 23, 2015.
`LG Electronics USA, Inc. - The court granted a joint motion to
`dismiss on April 23, 2015.
`LG Electronics, Inc. - The court granted a joint motion to dismiss on
`April 23, 2015.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`8.
`
`7. Motorola Mobility LLC - Litigation is ongoing. However, the parties
`are engaged in settlement discussions to settle this dispute.
`Twitter, Inc. – Twitter was terminated as a party to this case on May
`22, 2015 and moved to Case No. TXND-7-2015-cv-00062.
` Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion Corporation, et. al.., No. 3:11-cv-
`00367-O (February 23, 2011). The defendants include:
`
`1. Facebook, Inc. – The court granted a joint motion to dismiss Facebook
`from the lawsuit on February 19, 2013.
`2. Multiply, Inc. – The court granted a joint motion to dismiss Multiply
`from the lawsuit on July 27, 2012.
`3. Photobucket Corporation – The court granted a joint motion to dismiss
`Photobucket from the lawsuit on July 27, 2012.
`4. Research in Motion, Corporation – The court granted a joint motion to
`dismiss Research in Motion from the lawsuit on October 30, 2012.
`5. Research in Motion, Limited– The court granted a joint motion to dismiss
`Research in Motion from the lawsuit on October 30, 2012.
`6. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. – Appealed to the Federal Circuit.
`Decision pending. While U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,557 patent was initially
`asserted against Samsung, that patent is no longer at issue in the case. In
`addition, U.S. Pat. No. 8,612,515 was not asserted in that case.
`7. Samsung Telecommunications America, LCC– Appealed to the Federal
`Circuit. Decision pending. While U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,557 patent was
`initially asserted against Samsung, that patent is no longer at issue in the
`case. In addition, U.S. Pat. No. 8,612,515 was not asserted in that case.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`STATUS OF RELATED PTAB PROCEEDINGS
`The ’482 patent is also involved in three additional inter partes reviews,
`
`IPR2015-00685, -00686, and -00688, all filed by the same petitioner and for which
`
`motions to terminate are also being filed, and one additional inter partes review,
`
`IPR2015-00806, filed by Google et al., which appears to still be pending.
`
`NO OTHER COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS
`
`The undersigned represents that there are no other collateral agreements
`
`between each petitioner and Summit 6, and that Exhibits 1030 and 1031 represent
`
`true copies of the individual agreements between the parties that resolves, inter
`
`alia, this Review, Case No. IPR2015-00687. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). The
`
`agreements attached as Exhibits 1030 and 1031 reflect the parties’ agreement to
`
`terminate this proceeding.
`
`FUTURE PARTICIPATION BY THE PARTIES
`
`In accordance with the settlement agreements, Twitter and Apple will no
`
`longer participate in these proceedings, even if they are not terminated pursuant to
`
`this Joint Motion. Summit 6 reserves the right to participate (including the right to
`
`seek exclusion of some or all the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant), if necessary.
`
`Patent Owner notes, however, that in the absence of Twitter and Apple, it is
`
`unclear how these proceedings could properly proceed.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner Apple/Twitter and the patent owner
`
`Summit 6 jointly and respectfully request that the Board terminate this Review in
`
`its entirety.
`
`
`Date: June 10, 2015
`
`
`Date: June 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`Jason D. Eisenberg, Registration No. 43,447
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Peter J. Ayers/
`Peter J. Ayers, Registration No. 38,374
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00687 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned JOINT MOTION
`
`TO TERMINATE and any accompanying documents were served electronically via
`
`e-mail on June 10, 2015, in their entireties on Attorneys for Patent Owner –
`
`Summit 6, LLC:
`
`Peter J. Ayers (Lead counsel)
`John Shumaker (Backup counsel)
`Brian Mangum (Backup counsel)
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`peter@leehayes.com
`jshumaker@leehayes.com
`brianm@leehayes.com
` Summit6IPRService@leehayes.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`Date: June 10, 2015
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`2008554_1.DOCX
`
`/JASON D. EISENBERG/
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Registration No. 43,447
`
`
`
`9