`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01581
`Patent 5,754,946
`
`____________
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01581
`Patent No. 5,754,946
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft” or
`
`“Petitioner”) and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) (jointly, the “Parties”) jointly request termination of IPR2016-01581,
`
`which is directed to U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946 (“the ’946 Patent”).
`
`On August 11, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”) before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Patent
`
`Owner’s preliminary response was filed on November 25, 2016. The United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has not yet issued a Decision to Institute
`
`inter partes review of the ’946 Patent. The Parties have settled their dispute, and
`
`have reached agreement to terminate this inter partes review.
`
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing
`
`of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Board authorized the filing of the
`
`instant Motion on January 3, 2017. IPR2013-00428, Paper No. 56 provides
`
`guidance as to the content of a motion to terminate. There, the Board indicates
`
`that a joint motion, such as this one, should (1) include a brief explanation as to
`
`why termination is appropriate; (2) identify all parties in any related litigation
`
`involving the patents at issue, and the status of each; and (3) identify any related
`
`proceedings currently before the Office. IPR2013-00428, Paper No. 56 at 2. This
`
`Motion satisfies each of the above requirements.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01581
`Patent No. 5,754,946
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Indeed, the Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement, and a true
`
`copy of the same is attached hereto as Exhibit 2001, as required by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).1 The Parties desire that the Settlement
`
`Agreement (Exhibit 2001) be maintained as business confidential information
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c) and a separate joint request to that effect is being filed
`
`on even date herewith.
`
`1. Reasons Why Termination is Appropriate.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this
`
`chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of
`
`the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the
`
`proceeding before the request for termination is filed.”
`
`Because the parties are jointly requesting termination and the Office has not
`
`yet “decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is
`
`filed,” termination of the inter partes review with respect to Petitioner is
`
`warranted. Within the context of Section 317(a), a decision on the merits must be
`
`something beyond a decision instituting trial. Otherwise the quoted phrase would
`
`be rendered meaningless because every “inter partes review instituted under this
`
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement is being filed electronically via the Patent Review
`
`Processing System (PRPS) as “Parties and Board Only.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01581
`Patent No. 5,754,946
`
`chapter” originates with a decision instituting trial. Here, no decision on the
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`merits has been made. Accordingly, the USPTO is required to terminate this inter
`
`partes review with respect to Petitioner based on this joint request.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner, Microsoft, does not oppose Patent Owner in seeking
`
`termination of this inter partes review proceeding altogether.
`
`Because § 317(a) indicates that the USPTO is not required to terminate an
`
`inter partes review when no petitioner remains in the proceeding, Patent Owner
`
`provides comments as to why termination with respect to Patent Owner is proper
`
`in Patent Owner’s Explanation as to Why Termination Is Appropriate, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 2002.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01581
`Patent No. 5,754,946
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`2. All parties in any pending related litigation involving the patents at
`issue, and current status of each such related litigation.
`
`
`
`Petitioner is involved in another pending related litigation involving the ’946
`
`Patent.2 However, that litigation is also resolved by the parties settlement
`
`agreement. Other parties involved in litigations related to the ’946 Patent are
`
`identified in the table that follows.
`
`Case Name
`Mobile
`Telecommunications
`Technologies LLC v.
`Google Inc.
`
`Case No.
`2.16-cv-
`00002-
`JRG-RSP
`
`Court
`EDTX
`Marshall
`
`
`
`Defendants
`Google Inc.
`
`Status
`Pending
`
`3. Related proceedings currently before the Office and Status.
`
`Aside from this inter partes review proceeding, the ’946 Patent is also the
`
`subject of the following proceeding(s) currently before the Office:
`
`Related Proceeding Requestor/Petitioner Status
`IPR2016-01576
`Microsoft Inc.
`Pending
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Petitioner will not further participate
`
`in these proceedings even if the Petition is not terminated pursuant to this joint
`
`motion, except to the extent necessary to comply with any order from the PTAB or
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01581
`Patent No. 5,754,946
`
`any other rule that prohibits Petitioner from withdrawing from these proceedings.
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner notes, however, that in the absence of Petitioner, it is unclear how
`
`these proceedings could properly proceed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/John R. Kasha/
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel. 703-867-1886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Chun M. Ng/
`Chun M. Ng (Reg. 36,878)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Perkins Coie, LLP
`1201 Third Ave., Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-2099
`Tel. 206-359-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:15-
`cv-02122- JRG-RSP (EDTX).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(f), a copy of Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate Proceeding Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 and the supporting exhibits
`
`filed by the Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC on January 3, 2017
`
`was duly served via electronic mail upon CNg@perkinscoie.com (Chun M. Ng),
`
`CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com (Chad S. Campbell), TWimsatt@perkinscoie.com
`
`(Theodore H. Wimsatt), JCrop@perkinscoie.com (Jared W. Crop), and
`
`Patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com - counsel of record for Microsoft
`
`Corporation (“Petitioner”).
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/John R. Kasha/
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel. 703-867-1886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 2017