`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`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
`
`