`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2008EXHIBIT 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01726
`Patent 5,659,891
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXPLANATION
`
`AS TO WHY TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01726 Exhibit 2008 of Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`
`respectfully submits that this inter partes review proceeding should be terminated
`
`with respect to the Patent Owner, because (1) Patent Owner and the only Petitioner
`
`involved in the proceedings have filed a joint request to terminate this proceeding
`
`as to Petitioner; (2) the proceeding is in its early stage, (3) the merits of the
`
`Petition have not been determined, and (4) 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 United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) 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
`
`effectively pit the Patent Owner against the USPTO, a scenario never intended by
`
`the legislators that enacted the laws governing these proceedings.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01726 Exhibit 2008 of Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Consider that, under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), termination as to the Petitioner is
`
`mandatory upon joint request of the parties (which has been filed), and once that
`
`termination is effected, there will be no counter-party in these proceedings. In
`
`enacting the applicable law Congress did not intend in such circumstances that the
`
`USPTO 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
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01726 Exhibit 2008 of Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 comments1 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 PTAB’s role was intended to be that of an
`
`
`1 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01726 Exhibit 2008 of Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`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 the present case, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is not
`
`inconsistent with any evidence.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01726 Exhibit 2008 of Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, because these proceedings are at such an early stage 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.
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01726 Exhibit 2008 of Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, termination of these proceedings as to the
`
`Patent Owner is respectfully requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 14, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6