`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 24
`Entered: March 17, 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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01134
`Patent 7,542,045 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Termination of Inter Partes Review
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01134
`Patent 7,542,045 B2
`
`BACKGROUND
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15–17 (“the challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,542,045 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’045 patent”). Paper 2. On
`December 8, 2016, we instituted trial for all of the challenged claims of the
`’045 Patent. Paper 7. Subsequently, in a separate proceeding involving the
`’045 patent, we issued a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) determining claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 12, and 15–17 of the ’045 patent
`to be unpatentable. HTC Corp. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture
`LLC, Case IPR2015-01502, slip op. at 37 (PTAB January 4, 2017) (Paper
`52). On February 22, 2017, we issued an Order to Show Cause why the
`instant proceeding should not be terminated in view of the determination that
`claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15–17 of the ’045 patent are unpatentable.
`Paper 20, 2. After a conference call with the parties on February 27, 2017,
`we issued an Order authorizing the parties to file a Joint Motion to
`Terminate the instant proceeding in lieu of a response to the Order to Show
`Cause. Paper 21, 3. On March 10, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion to
`Terminate the instant proceeding. Paper 23.
`In their Joint Motion to Terminate, the parties indicate that the time
`period has lapsed for appealing the Final Written Decision in HTC
`Corporation v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC, Case
`IPR2015-01502, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01134
`Patent 7,542,045 B2
`Paper 23, 1–2. Therefore, each of the challenged claims in the instant inter
`partes review is unpatentable.1
`The particular facts before us indicate that it is appropriate to
`terminate this inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. We already have
`determined that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15–17 of the ’045 patent are
`unpatentable, and, therefore, any decision we might reach in the instant
`proceeding regarding the patentability of these claims would be moot and
`purely advisory. See Paper 23, 1 (The parties “jointly request termination of
`this inter partes review proceeding as moot.”). Furthermore, rendering a
`Final Written Decision in the instant proceeding would not promote securing
`the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding or the
`efficient utilization of the Board’s limited resources. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(b).
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that we grant the parties’ Joint Motion to Terminate and,
`as a result, we terminate this inter partes review as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 In addition, Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture (“Patent Owner”) did
`not file a Patent Owner Response or a Motion to Amend in the instant
`proceeding. See Paper 23, 1. In the Scheduling Order for the instant
`proceeding, “[t]he patent owner [was] cautioned that any arguments for
`patentability not raised and fully briefed in the response will be deemed
`waived.” Paper 8, 3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01134
`Patent 7,542,045 B2
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David W. O’Brien
`Andrew Ehmke
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`David.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Masood Anjom
`Scott Clark
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`manjom@azalaw.com
`sclark@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
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
