`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01576 (Patent 5,754,946)
`Case IPR2016-01581 (Patent 5,754,946)
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`On January 3, 2017, Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)
`
`and Patent Owner Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`
`(“MTEL”) filed a “Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding Pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 317” (“Mot.”), and “Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as
`
`Business Confidential Information Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317.” IPR2016-
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01576 (Patent 5,574,946)
`Case IPR2016-01581 (Patent 5,574,946)
`01576 Papers 7, 8; IPR2016-01581 Papers 7, 8.1 The parties also filed, with
`
`“Board Only” accessibility, a true copy of their confidential settlement
`
`agreement in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
`
`Exhibit 2001.
`
`The Board has not yet instituted trial in this proceeding, thus, this
`
`proceeding is in its initial stages. The parties indicate that they “have settled
`
`their dispute, and have reached agreement to terminate this inter partes
`
`review.” Mot. 1. The motion also states that Microsoft does not oppose
`
`termination of the proceedings and that the parties have settled their district
`
`court litigation. Id. at 3–4.
`
`MTEL filed separately, as Exhibit 2002, additional arguments as to
`
`why it would be appropriate for the panel to terminate the proceeding as to
`
`Patent Owner. Those arguments should have been presented in the body of
`
`the motion, not as an attachment to the motion, as the arguments form part
`
`of the full statement of the reasons for the relief requested in a motion to
`
`terminate. See 37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2). Therefore, the arguments presented
`
`in Exhibit 2002 will not be considered.
`
`Under these circumstances and considering the parties’ arguments
`
`presented in the motion, we determine that it is appropriate to enter
`
`judgment.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the parties’ joint motions to terminate IPR2016-
`
`01576 and IPR2016-01581 are granted;
`
`
`1 The filings in each of these proceedings are identical, and, therefore, we
`refer from here on to the filings in case IPR2016-01576.
`2 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination
`of a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01576 (Patent 5,574,946)
`Case IPR2016-01581 (Patent 5,574,946)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceedings are hereby
`
`terminated in their entirety; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, as was requested timely by the parties
`
`the settlement agreement in these proceedings will be treated as business
`
`confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Chun M. Ng
`CNg@perkinscoie.com
`patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
`
`Theodore H. Wimsatt
`TWimsatt@perkinscoie.com
`
`Jared W. Crop
`JCrop@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kasha Law LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`Kelly L. Kasha
`Kasha Law LLC
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`
`
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
