throbber
Paper 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: May 6, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZTE USA, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., LG
`ELECTRONCIS, INC., and APPLE INC.,1
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00664 (Patent 5,812,789) Case IPR2016-00848 (Patent 5,960,464)
`Case IPR2016-00665 (Patent 5,960,464) Case IPR2016-00923 (Patent 5,812,789)
`Case IPR2016-00847 (Patent 5,812,789) Case IPR2016-00924 (Patent 5,960,464)2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 ZTE USA, Inc., is the Petitioner in Cases IPR2016-00664 and IPR2016-00665,
`HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and LG Electronics, Inc. are the Petitioner
`in Cases IPR2016-00847 and IPR2016-00848, and Apple Inc. is the Petitioner in
`Cases IPR2016-00923 and IPR2016-00924.
`2 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in all six cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00664 (Patent 5,812,789)
`IPR2016-00665 (Patent 5,960,464)
`IPR2016-00847 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`
`IPR2016-00848 (Patent 5,960,464)
`IPR2016-00923 (Patent 5,812,789)
`IPR2016-00924 (Patent 5,960,464)
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`A conference call in the six proceedings identified above was held on May
`
`4, 2016, between the parties and Judges Zecher, Arpin, and Clements. Petitioners,
`ZTE USA, Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., and
`Apple Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”), initiated the conference call to discuss
`adjusting the pre-institution schedules in each of these proceedings. Petitioners
`arranged for a court reporter and agreed to file a transcript of the conference call in
`each proceeding as a separate exhibit. We reiterate some of the discussion here,
`but we need not repeat all the details because the complete discussion will be
`reflected in the transcript.
`Petitioners began the conference call by explaining that the Petitions filed in
`these proceeding were accompanied by Motions for Joinder. Each Motion for
`Joinder seeks to join one of Cases IPR2015-01944 and IPR2015-01946, in which
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(collectively “Samsung”) challenged the same patents involved in these
`proceedings and we instituted inter partes reviews. Petitioners explained that,
`according to recent filings in the underlying district court case between Samsung
`and Patent Owner, Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC (“Patent
`Owner”), there is a settlement pending between these two parties. Counsel for
`Samsung participated in the conference call and, upon further inquiry from us,
`confirmed that the settlement pending encompasses Cases IPR2015-01944 and
`IPR2015-01946. In light of the pending settlement between Samsung and Patent
`Owner, Petitioners requested that we adjust the pre-institution schedules in these
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00848 (Patent 5,960,464)
`IPR2016-00923 (Patent 5,812,789)
`IPR2016-00924 (Patent 5,960,464)
`
`IPR2016-00664 (Patent 5,812,789)
`IPR2016-00665 (Patent 5,960,464)
`IPR2016-00847 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`proceedings so as to expedite action on the Motions for Joinder prior to the
`termination of Cases IPR2015-01944 and IPR2015-01946.
`
`In response, we explained that we cannot expedite action on the Motions for
`Joinder filed in these proceeding unless (1) Patent Owner agrees not to oppose the
`Motions for Joinder in the proceedings where the default time period for filing an
`opposition has yet to expire; and (2) Patent Owner agrees to file or waive the
`Patent Owner Preliminary Responses prior to the three month default time period
`for filing such Responses. Patent Owner confirmed that it did not oppose the
`Motions for Joinder in Cases IPR2016-00664 and IPR2016-00665, and represented
`that it will not oppose the Motions for Joinder in the remaining proceedings where
`the default time period for filing an opposition has yet to expire. Patent Owner
`also represented that it was willing to file or waive the Patent Owner Preliminary
`Responses in these proceedings by May 26, 2016. Petitioners agreed to the date
`proposed by Patent Owner. After a brief deliberation, we notified the parties that,
`based on their agreement, we will reset the deadline for filing or waiving the Patent
`Owner Preliminary Responses in these proceedings to May 26, 2016.
`
`
`II. ORDER
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`in these proceedings must be filed or waived by May 26, 2016.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00848 (Patent 5,960,464)
`IPR2016-00923 (Patent 5,812,789)
`IPR2016-00924 (Patent 5,960,464)
`
`IPR2016-00664 (Patent 5,812,789)
`IPR2016-00665 (Patent 5,960,464)
`IPR2016-00847 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Shaobin Zhu
`Carlos J. Rosario
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`shaobin.zhu@finnegan.com
`carlos.rosario@finnegan.com
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Samuel A. Dillion
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`samuel.dillon@sidley.com
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`David W. O’Brien
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Massod Anjom
`Scott Clark
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`manjom@azalaw.com
`sclark@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket