Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: March 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)1
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in all three 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 without prior authorization.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: March 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)1
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in all three 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 without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`
`
`On February 22, 2017, we issued an Order to Show Cause why
`IPR2016-01114 should not be terminated as to claims 1–4, why IPR2016-
`01118 should not be terminated, and why IPR2016-01134 should not be
`terminated, in light of issuance of Final Written Decisions mailed in three
`earlier-filed proceedings, respectively.2 Paper 27 (“Order to Show Cause”).3
`On February 23, 2017, the parties jointly requested a conference call
`with the Board to discuss an appropriate disposition of these proceedings in
`light of Patent Owner’s reported representation to Petitioner that Patent
`Owner does not intend to appeal the Final Written Decisions to the U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`On February 27, 2017, a conference call in the above proceedings
`among respective counsel for the parties and Judges Zecher, Arpin, Mitchell,
`and Clements. During the call, Petitioner explained that, by its calculation,
`Patent Owner has until March 8, 2017, to file Notices of Appeal of the Final
`Written Decisions with the Federal Circuit. According to Petitioner, Patent
`Owner represented that it does not intend to appeal the Final Written
`Decisions to the Federal Circuit. Petitioner inquired whether, in light of
`Patent Owner’s representation, it would be appropriate to file Joint Motions
`to Dismiss in lieu of responses to the Order to Show Cause.
`
`
`2 HTC Corp. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC, Case
`IPR2015-01500 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2017) (Paper 54) (“1500 FWD”); HTC Corp.
`v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC, Case IPR2015-01501
`(PTAB Jan. 4, 2017) (Paper 53) (“1501 FWD”); HTC Corp. v. Parthenon
`Unified Memory Architecture LLC, Case IPR2015-01502 (PTAB Jan. 4,
`2017) (Paper 52) (“1502 FWD”) (collectively, “Final Written Decisions”).
`3 Citations are to IPR2016-01114. An identical Order was entered in
`IPR2016-01118 and in IPR2016-01134.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`
`
`During the call, Patent Owner confirmed that it does not intend to
`appeal the Final Written Decisions to the Federal Circuit, and that it does not
`oppose filing either Joint Motions to Dismiss or Joint Motions to Terminate.
`Petitioner expressed that our Decisions on Institution in these
`proceedings need not be vacated, distinguishing these proceedings from
`cases in which Decisions on Institution have been vacated, e.g., for failure to
`name a real party-in-interest. Patent Owner did not express an opinion on
`whether our Decisions on Institution should be vacated
`Based on Patent Owner’s representation that it does not intend to
`appeal the Final Written Decisions to the Federal Circuit, and in lieu of
`responses to our Order to Show Cause, we authorized the parties to file, in
`each proceeding, a Joint Motion to Terminate Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72,
`limited to no more than three pages in length, on or before March 10, 2017.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that both parties are excused from filing a response to the
`Order to Show Cause entered into each proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2016-01114, the parties are
`authorized to file a Joint Motion to Terminate only as to Claims 1–4, not to
`exceed three pages in length, on or before March 10, 2017;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2016-01118, the parties are
`authorized to file a Joint Motion to Terminate, not to exceed three pages in
`length, on or before March 10, 2017; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2016-01134, the parties are
`authorized to file a Joint Motion to Terminate, not to exceed three pages in
`length, on or before March 10, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
