`Filed: May 24, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01944
`Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and the Board’s authorization of the filing of
`
`this joint motion in its email to the parties on May 20, 2016, Petitioners Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Samsung”) and Patent Owner Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC
`
`(“PUMA”) jointly request that this inter partes review proceeding involving U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,812,789 (“the ’789 Patent”) be terminated based on a settlement
`
`between Petitioner and Patent Owner (“the Parties”).
`
`II. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION
`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 on May 20, 2016. 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 (a) include a brief explanation as to why
`
`termination is appropriate; (b) identify all parties in any related litigation involving
`
`the patent at issue; (c) identify any related proceedings currently before the Office,
`
`and (d) discuss specifically the current status of each such related litigation or
`
`proceeding with respect to each party to the litigation or proceeding. Id. at 2. This
`
`motion satisfies each of the above requirements and is accompanied by a copy of
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Parties’ settlement agreement, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01944
`
`§ 42.74(b).
`
`Brief Explanation of Why Termination is Appropriate
`
`a.
`Termination is appropriate because a final written decision has not been
`
`reached in this proceeding and the Parties will no longer be participating in this
`
`proceeding. The Parties have settled their disputes and executed a settlement
`
`agreement to terminate this proceeding, as well as the Parties’ related district court
`
`litigation regarding the ’789 Patent: Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC
`
`v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case Number 2:14-cv-00902 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The district court litigation was dismissed with prejudice on May 20, 2016.
`
`b.
`
`All Parties in Any Pending Related Litigation Involving the
`Patents at Issue
`
`Samsung and PUMA are the only Parties to the related district court
`
`litigation, Case Number 2:14-cv-00902. The ’789 patent is also at issue in other
`
`pending litigation. In Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. HTC Corp.
`
`et al., Case Number 2:14-cv-00690 (E.D. Tex.), the parties include PUMA, HTC
`
`America, Inc., HTC Corp., LG Elecs. USA, Inc., and LG Elecs., Inc. In Parthenon
`
`Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. LG Elecs. MobileComm, USA, Case Number
`
`2:15-cv-01950 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`the parties
`
`include PUMA and LG Elecs.
`
`MobileComm USA, Inc. In Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. ZTE
`
`Corp. et al., Case Number 2:15-cv-00225 (E.D. Tex.), the parties include PUMA,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`ZTE (TX) Inc., ZTE Corp., and ZTE USA, Inc. In Parthenon Unified Memory
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01944
`
`Architecture LLC v. Apple Inc., Case Number 2:15-cv-00621 (E.D. Tex.), the
`
`parties include PUMA and Apple Inc. No other litigation or proceeding involving
`
`the ’789 patent is contemplated in the foreseeable future.
`
`Related Proceedings Currently Before the Office
`
`c.
`In addition to the instant proceeding, Samsung and PUMA are Parties to
`
`IPR2015-01500, IPR2015-01501, IPR2015-01502, and IPR2015-01946. The
`
`Parties are currently filing motions to terminate these related proceedings.
`
`Moreover, the ’789 patent is at issue in IPR2016-00664, IPR2016-00847, and
`
`IPR2016-00923, where motions for joinder to the instant proceeding are pending.
`
`d.
`
`Current Status of Each Such Related Litigation or Proceeding
`With Respect to Each Party to the Litigation or Proceeding
`
`Sections II.b and c above indicate the status of each related litigation or
`
`proceeding with respect to each party to the litigation or proceeding.
`
`III. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), the Parties’
`
`settlement agreement is in writing, and a true and correct copy is being filed
`
`concurrently herewith as Exhibit 1041.1 The Parties are also filing concurrently
`
`herewith a joint request under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to treat
`
`1 The settlement agreement is being filed via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`(PRPS) with access to the “Parties and Board only.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`the settlement agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01944
`
`from the files of the ’789 Patent. There are no collateral agreements or
`
`understandings made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of
`
`the inter partes review.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For all of these reasons, the Parties respectfully request termination of this
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Allan M. Soobert/
`Allan M. Soobert
`Reg. No. 36,284
`
`Counsel for Samsung
`
`
`
`
`By: /Masood Anjom/
`Masood Anjom
`Reg. No. 62,167
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Parthenon
`Unified Memory Architecture, LLC
`
`4
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 24, 2016
`
`
`Dated: May 24, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on
`
`counsel a true and correct copy of the foregoing Joint Motion to Terminate
`
`Proceeding by electronic means on the date below at the following address of
`
`record:
`
`Masood Anjom (manjom@azalaw.com)
`Alisa Lipski (alipski@azalaw.com)
`Amir Alavi (aalavi@azalaw.com)
`Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C.
`1221 McKinney, Suite 3460
`Houston, TX 77010
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Allan M. Soobert/
`Allan M. Soobert
`Reg. No. 36,284
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Dated: May 24, 2016