RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`Marc A. Fenster, SBN 181067
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Andrew D. Weiss, SBN 232974
`Email: aweiss@raklaw.com
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Proxyconn, Inc.
`
`MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
`Karin G. Pagnanelli, SBN 174763
`Email: kgp@msk.com
`11377 West Olympic Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
`Telephone: (310) 312-2000
`Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`Stephen J. Joncus (Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`salumeh R. Loesch (Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: salumeh.loesch@klarquist.com
`John D. Vandenberg (Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard
`Company, Dell Inc., and Acer America
`Corporation
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET
`AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CASE NO. SA CV11-1681 DOC (JPRx)
`[Consolidated with Case Nos. SA CV11-1682
`DOC (JPRx), SA CV11-1683 DOC (JPRx),
`SA CV11-1684 DOC (JPRx), and SA CV12-
`0889 DOC (JPRx)]
`
`The Honorable David O. Carter
`
`Courtroom: 9D
`
`JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING
`STAY OF CASE PENDING INTER
`PARTES REVIEW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Plaintiff Proxyconn, Inc. (“Proxyconn”) and Defendants Microsoft
`
`Corporation (“Microsoft”), Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”), Acer America
`
`Corporation (“Acer”) and Dell Inc. (“Dell”) (collectively, “Defendants”)
`
`(Proxyconn and Defendants collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their
`
`undersigned counsel of record, have agreed to request that this Court stay this case1
`
`pending inter partes review (“IPReview”) of the patent-in-suit. As part of this
`
`stipulation, Microsoft and Proxyconn also have agreed to take certain steps to
`
`expedite that inter partes review proceeding.
`
`
`
`WHEREAS,
`
`A. This case is in its early stage, with minimal discovery conducted;
`
`B. On September 18, 2012, just two days after the new Patent Office review
`
`procedures became available under the America Invents Act (35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19
`
`(2011)), Microsoft filed a Petition for IPReview with the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Microsoft's petition
`
`challenges all nine claims of the patent-in-suit that Proxyconn had identified as
`
`being asserted in this action at the time the petition was filed;
`
`C. Proxyconn has since identified two additional claims it intends to assert
`
`against Microsoft and may assert against the other defendants;
`
`D. Microsoft responded that it had insufficient notice of that assertion of
`
`two additional claims to file a second inter partes review within the first statutory
`
`window for so doing, which closes November 4, 2012 (one-year from service of
`
`1 This Joint Stipulation applies to both the above-captioned litigation and also to
`the following consolidated, co-pending cases: 1) Proxyconn, Inc. v. Microsoft
`Corporation, Case No. 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPRx; 2) Proxyconn, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`Packard Company, Case No. 8:11-cv-01682-DOC-JPRx; 3) Proxyconn, Inc. v.
`Acer America Corporation, 8:11-cv-01684-DOC-JPRx; and 4) Proxyconn, Inc. v.
`Microsoft Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-0889-DOC-JPRx, all pending
`before the Honorable David O. Carter.
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, Page 3
`
`

`

`
`the first complaint). But, Microsoft agreed to file such second inter partes review,
`
`challenging the two newly asserted claims, promptly if and when the second
`
`statutory window opens for so filing, as set forth below;
`
`E. The Petition for IPReview asserts that the asserted claims are invalid in
`
`view of certain printed publication prior art. If instituted, the IPReview likely will
`
`substantially simplify or outright resolve the issues in this case. Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(e)(2) (2011), after a final written decision from an IPReview, a petitioner
`
`"may not assert…in a civil action…that the claim is invalid on any ground that the
`
`petition raised or reasonably could have raised during the inter partes review."
`
`
`
`NOW, THEREFORE, to conserve both the parties and the Court’s resources,
`
`the parties have stipulated as follows:
`1.
`
`Proxyconn and Defendants each consent to and agree to jointly
`
`request the Court for a complete stay of the pending litigations
`
`throughout the pendency of the two '717 patent IPReview proceedings
`
`identified below;
`
`2.
`
`Proxyconn agrees to file in the PTAB, within two weeks of this
`
`stipulation, a waiver of its “preliminary response” to Microsoft’s
`
`September 2012 IPReview petition;
`
`3.
`
`Contingent on the Court granting and maintaining such stay up to at
`
`least the PTAB resolution of the IPReview proceedings (such as a
`
`denial to institute proceedings or a “written decision”), the parties
`
`further agree as follows:
`a. Microsoft shall file an IPReview petition challenging at least
`
`claims 6 and 9 of the asserted '717 patent within three weeks of
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, Page 4
`
`

`

`the PTAB instituting an IPReview trial based on Microsoft’s
`
`September 2012 petition;
`b. With that second petition, Microsoft shall file a motion to join
`
`that second petition with the IPReview trial instituted on the
`
`September 2012 petition;
`c. Within two weeks of the filing of the second petition,
`
`Proxyconn shall file a consent to that motion for joinder and a
`
`waiver of its preliminary response to that second petition;
`
`d.
`
`For each pending action and for any future Proxyconn patent
`
`infringement cause of action based on Microsoft’s Remote
`
`Differential Compression (RDC) and/or Microsoft’s
`
`BranchCache functionality, Dell, Acer and HP each voluntarily
`
`agrees to be deemed estopped to the same extent that Microsoft
`
`becomes estopped by a PTAB “written decision” arising from
`
`the first or second IPReview petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e);
`
`e.
`
`For the sake of clarity, it is agreed that, although the OEM
`
`Defendants have agreed to be estopped as set forth in the
`
`immediately preceding Paragraph 3(d), nothing in this
`
`stipulation shall be argued to represent an admission (barring a
`
`voluntary agreement) by Dell, Acer and HP that they would or
`
`would not be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`If the PTAB declines to institute an IPReview trial, the parties agree
`
`to jointly move to lift the stay.
`
`If the PTAB agrees to institute an IPReview trial on less than all
`
`claims challenged by Microsoft in the September 2012 petition, then
`
`Proxyconn shall have two weeks from that decision to terminate this
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`stipulation in which case no party shall be further bound by any
`
`agreement herein and any party will be free to request lifting the stay
`
`or to oppose lifting the stay.
`
`6.
`
`The parties jointly request that the Court enter the proposed order
`
`filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`DATED: November 2, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`By: /s/ Andrew D. Weiss
`Andrew D. Weiss
`Marc A. Fenster, SBN 181067
`Andrew D. Weiss, SBN 232974
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`aweiss@raklaw.com
`Attorneys For Plaintiff
`Proxyconn, Inc.
`
`MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
`By: /s/ Karin G. Pagnanelli
`
`
`Karin G. Pagnanelli
`Karin G. Pagnanelli, SBN 174763
`11377 West Olympic Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
`Telephone: (310) 312-2000
`Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
`kgp@msk.com
`Stephen J. Joncus (Pro Hac Vice)
`Salumeh R. Loesch (Pro Hac Vice)
`John D. Vandenberg (Pro Hac Vice)
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`salumeh.loesch@klarquist.com
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-
`Packard Company, Dell Inc., and
`Acer America Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, Page 6
`
`