`________________
`
`Paper 13
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`NETFLIX, INC. &
`ROKU, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONVERGENT MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,850,507
`Case IPR No.: IPR2016-01761
`________________
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION OF PETITIONERS AND PATENT OWNER TO TERMINATE
`PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §317 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01761
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317, 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and the Board’s
`
`authorization provided on April 28, 2017, Petitioners Netflix, Inc. and Roku, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) and Patent Owner Convergent Media Solutions, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner” or “CMS”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly request termination of Inter
`
`Partes Review No. IPR2016-01761 pursuant to settlement. As there are no other
`
`petitioners in this proceeding and the proceeding is still at an early stage, the
`
`Parties respectfully submit that termination of this proceeding is appropriate.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Petitioner filed their petition in this proceeding for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507 (the “’507 Patent”) on September 8, 2016. On April 3,
`
`2017, AT&T Services, Inc. filed an IPR petition and Motion for Joinder
`
`challenging the ’507 Patent, IPR2017-01235. AT&T Services, Inc. is otherwise
`
`time barred, under 35 U.S.C. §315(b), from challenging the ’507 Patent via IPR.
`
`No other petitions related to the ’507 Patent are pending.
`
`Patent Owner elected not to file a Preliminary Response. Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owner have reached a Settlement Agreement to end their disputes in this
`
`proceeding and the underlying litigation. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.74(b), the agreement between the Parties is in writing, constitutes
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01761
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties, and a copy of the
`
`Settlement Agreements are submitted herewith as Exhibits 2001 (Netflix) and 2002
`
`(Roku).
`
`The Parties jointly request that the Settlement Agreements filed as Exhibits
`
`2001 and 2002 be treated as business confidential information and kept separate
`
`from the underlying patent file, as provided in 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.74(c), to maintain confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A joint motion to terminate generally “must (1) include a brief explanation
`
`as to why termination is appropriate; (2) identify all parties in any related litigation
`
`involving the patents at issue; (3) identify any related proceedings currently before
`
`the Office, and (4) discuss specifically the current status of each such related
`
`litigation or proceeding with respect to each party to the litigation or proceeding.”
`
`Heartland Tanning, Inc. v. Sunless, Inc., IPR2014-00018, Paper 26 at 2 (PTAB Jul.
`
`28, 2014).
`
`The Board should terminate this proceeding as the Parties jointly request, for
`
`the following reasons.
`
`1. Brief Explanation as to Why Termination Is Appropriate
`
`The Parties have met the statutory requirement that they file a “joint request”
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01761
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`to terminate before the office “has decided the merits of the proceeding.”
`
`35 U.S.C. §317(a). The proceeding is still at an early stage. Patent Owner elected
`
`not to file a Preliminary Response. The Board entered an institution decision as to
`
`claims 1-17 on two grounds. Patent Owner’s Response is due on June 6, 2017.
`
`The Parties have reached a settlement as to the ’507 Patent to end this
`
`dispute. A copy of the confidential Settlement Agreement pertaining to this case is
`
`filed concurrently herewith. See Exs. 2001 and 2002. The Parties further jointly
`
`certify that there is no other agreement or understanding between them, including
`
`any other collateral agreements, made in connection with, or in contemplation of,
`
`the termination of the instant proceeding as set forth in 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
`
`The Parties respectfully submit that termination of this proceeding is
`
`appropriate because (a) this proceeding is at an early stage and no motions are
`
`outstanding; (b) the Parties have reached agreement to end their dispute concerning
`
`the ’507 Patent; (c) the Parties have agreed to dismiss the related district court
`
`litigation between themselves with respect to the ’507 Patent; (d) the Parties agree
`
`that this Inter Partes Review should be terminated; and (e) termination of this
`
`proceeding will preserve the Board’s resources and obviate the need for any more
`
`Board involvement in the present proceeding.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01761
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`2. Identity and Status of Parties in Related Litigation Involving the Patent
`
`The ’507 Patent was in dispute against Petitioners in Convergent Media
`
`Solutions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02160-M (N.D. Tex.) and Convergent
`
`Media Solutions, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02163-M (N.D. Tex.). These
`
`cases have been dismissed pursuant to the settlement agreements between the
`
`Parties. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes with lead case
`
`Convergent Media Solutions, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. 3:15-cv-2156-M (N.D. Tex.),
`
`which is still on-going. There are no other current or contemplated pending
`
`litigation proceedings involving the ’507 Patent.
`
` 3.
`
`Identity and Status of Any Related Proceedings Before the Office
`
`On April 3, 2017, AT&T Services, Inc. filed an IPR petition and Motion for
`
`Joinder challenging the ’507 Patent, IPR2017-01235. AT&T Services, Inc. is
`
`otherwise time barred, under 35 U.S.C. §315(b), from challenging the ’507 Patent
`
`via IPR. No other petitions related to the ’507 Patent are pending.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner and Patent Owner respectfully
`
`request termination of this Inter Partes Review.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01761
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew C. Juren
`Matthew C. Juren
`
`Registration No. 68,233
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`matthew@nelbum.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`/s/ Chun M. Ng
`Chun M. Ng
`USPTO Reg. No. 36,878
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Phone: 206-359-6488
`Fax: 206-359-7488
`CNg@perkinscoie.com
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 1, 2017
`
`I hereby certify that on May 1, 2017, a copy of the JOINT MOTION OF
`
`PETITIONERS AND PATENT OWNER TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO
`
`35 U.S.C. §317 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.74 has been served in its entirety via email on
`
`the following:
`
`Chun M. Ng (Reg. No. 36,878)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01761
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,507 B2
`
`
`
`Vinay P. Sathe (Reg. No. 55,595)
`Patrick J. McKeever (Reg. No. 66,019)
`Miguel J. Bombach (Reg. No. 68,636)
`Kevin E. Kantharia (Reg. No. 71,071)
`Matthew C. Bernstein (Pro Hac Vice)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: 858-720-5700
`Fax: 858-720-5799
`Service Email: PerkinsServiceConvergentMediaIPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew C. Juren
`Matthew C. Juren
`
`Registration No. 68,233
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`matthew@nelbum.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Dated: May 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`