`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: May 3, 2016
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01724 (Patent 5,915,210)
`Case IPR2015-01726 (Patent 5,659,891)
`____________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`On April 14, 2016, Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
`(“Samsung”) and Patent Owner filed a “Joint Motion to Terminate
`Proceeding Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317” (“Mot.”), and “Joint Request to
`File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information Pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 317.” IPR2015-01724 Papers 14, 15; IPR2015-01726 Papers
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01724 (Patent 5,915,210)
`Case IPR2015-01726 (Patent 5,659,891)
`12, 13.1 The parties also filed, with “Board Only” accessibility, a true copy
`of their confidential settlement agreement in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Exhibit 2001.
`The Board instituted trial in this proceeding on February 16, 2016 and
`Patent Owner’s Response is not yet due, thus, this proceeding is in its initial
`stages. The parties indicate that they “have settled their dispute, and have
`reached agreement to terminate this inter partes review.” Mot. 1. The
`motion also states that Samsung will not be a participant in these
`proceedings going forward and that the parties have settled their district
`court litigation. Id. at 2–3.
`Patent Owner filed separately, as Exhibit 2002, additional 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
`presented in Exhibit 2002 will not be considered.
`Under these circumstances and considering the parties’ arguments
`presented in the motion, we determine that it is appropriate to enter
`judgment.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the parties’ joint motions to terminate IPR2015-
`01724 and IPR2015-01726 are granted;
`
`
`1 The filings in each of these proceedings are identical, and, therefore, we
`refer from here on to the filings in case IPR2015-01724.
`2 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01724 (Patent 5,915,210)
`Case IPR2015-01726 (Patent 5,659,891)
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceedings are hereby
`terminated in their entirety; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, as was requested timely by the parties
`the settlement agreement in these proceedings will be treated as business
`confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Heath J. Briggs
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`briggsh@gtlaw.com
`
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`John R. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`Craig Steven Jepson
`REED & SCARDINO LLP
`cjepson@reedscardino.com
`
`Kirk D. Dorius
`REED & SCARDINO LLP
`kdorius@reedscardino.com
`
`
`
`
`3