`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2017-004431
`Patent No. 6,470,399 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE
`WITH RESPECT TO ZTE (USA), INC. AND PAPST LICENSING GMBH &
`CO. KG PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01682 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72 and 42.74, and the Board’s
`
`authorization of January 2, 2018, Petitioner ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE”) and Patent
`
`Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Patent Owner” or “Papst”) jointly
`
`move to terminate the present inter partes review proceeding with respect to ZTE
`
`and Papst in light of Patent Owner Papst and Petitioner ZTE’s settlement of their
`
`dispute regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 (“the ’399 patent”).
`
`ZTE and Patent Owner are concurrently filing a true and complete copy of
`
`their written Settlement Agreement (Confidential Exhibit 2013) in connection with
`
`this matter as required by the statute. ZTE and Patent Owner certify that there are
`
`no other agreements or understandings, oral or written, between the parties,
`
`including any collateral agreements, made in connection with, or in contemplation
`
`of, the termination of the present proceeding with respect to ZTE and Patent
`
`Owner. A joint request to treat the Settlement Agreement as business confidential
`
`information kept separate from the file of the involved patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 317(b) is being filed concurrently.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`An inter partes review proceeding “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). 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 No. 26, at *2 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2014).
`
`ARGUMENT
`Termination of the present inter partes review proceeding with respect to
`
`ZTE and Papst is appropriate because (1) ZTE and Patent Owner have settled their
`
`dispute regarding the ’399 patent and have agreed to terminate the proceeding with
`
`respect to ZTE and Papst, (2) the Office has not yet decided the merits of the
`
`proceeding, and (3) public policy favors the termination.
`
`First, the Settlement Agreement completely resolves the controversy
`
`between Patent Owner and ZTE relating to the ’399 patent. ZTE (USA), Inc., and
`
`ZTE Corporation were named defendants in Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`Apple Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1095-RWS (E.D. Tex) and the consolidated case Papst
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc., No. 6:15-cv-
`
`1100-RWS (E.D. Tex.). On December 29, 2017, ZTE and Patent Owner filed a
`
`joint motion to dismiss with prejudice all asserted claims against the ZTE entities
`
`and all asserted counterclaims by the ZTE entities.
`
`Second, the Office has not decided the merits of the proceeding. Although
`
`the Board has instituted trial (Paper 7), the proceeding is still in the briefing stage
`
`and there is no determination of whether an oral hearing will occur.
`
`Third, public policy favors the termination. As recognized by the rules of
`
`practice before the Board:
`
`There are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement
`between the parties to a proceeding. The Board will be
`available to facilitate settlement discussions, and where
`appropriate, may require a settlement discussion as part
`of the proceeding. The Board expects that a proceeding
`will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement,
`unless the Board has already decided the merits of the
`proceeding.
`
`Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, Fed. Register, Vol. 77, No. 157 at 48768 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). Moreover, no public interest or other factors militate against
`
`termination of this proceeding with respect to ZTE and Papst as no parties remain
`
`in the proceeding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`As to the remaining Heartland Tanning requirements, Exhibit A identifies
`
`each district court litigation that involves the ’399 patent or any related patents and
`
`discusses the current status of these related litigations. Exhibit B identifies all
`
`petitions for Inter Partes Review that have been filed against the ’399 patent or
`
`any related patent and discusses the status of each.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, ZTE and Patent Owner jointly and respectfully
`
`request that the instant proceeding be terminated with respect to both Petitioner
`
`ZTE and Patent Owner Papst.
`
`
`Date: January 8, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Scott R. Miller
`
`Scott R. Miller
`Registration No. 32,276
`Darren Franklin
`Registration No. 51,701
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
`HAMPTON, LLP
`333 South Hope Street – 43rd Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 620-1780
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner ZTE (USA), Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Registration No. 47,531
`DiNovo Price LLP
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, TX 78731
`(512) 539-2626
`
`Anthony L. Meola
`Registration No. 44,936
`Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP
`2500 Westchester Avenue, Suite 210
`Purchase, NY 10577
`(914) 825-1039
`
`Jason A. Murphy
`Registration No. 63,423
`Victor J. Baranowski
`Registration No. 64,998
`Arlen L. Olsen
`Registration No. 37,543
`Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP
`22 Century Hill Drive, Suite 302
`Latham, NY 12110
`(518) 220-1850
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`Pending/Stayed
`
`Terminated
`
`Pending
`
`Terminated
`
`Terminated
`
`Terminated
`
`Exhibit A
`Status of Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 or Related Patents
`Case Caption
`Status
`In Re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, MDL
`Pending
`No. 1880 (Misc. Action No. 07-493) relating to Nos. 07-cv-
`1118, 07-cv-1222, 07-cv-2086, 07-cv-2088, 08-cv-865, 08-cv-
`985, 08-cv-1406, and 09-cv-530
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. HP, Inc., Case No. 3:16-
`cv-00575 (N.D. Cal.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
`6:15-cv-01095 (E.D. Tex.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Huawei Technologies
`Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01115 (E.D. Tex.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States),
`Inc. et al., Case. No. 6:15-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01099 (E.D. Tex.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co.
`Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01102 (E.D. Tex.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE Corporation et al.,
`Case. No. 6:15-cv-01100 (E.D. Tex.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Canon, Inc. et al., Case
`No. 1:15-cv-01692 (D.D.C.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Fujifilm Corporation, et
`al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01693 (D.D.C.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. JVCKENWOOD
`Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01747 (D.D.C.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Nikon Corporation, et
`al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01748 (D.D.C.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Olympus Corporation, et
`al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01749 (D.D.C.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Panasonic Corporation,
`et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01750 (D.D.C.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Canon, Inc., et al., Case
`No. 1:15-cv-00495 (D. Del.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Fujifilm Corporation, et
`al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00496 (D. Del.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. HP, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Terminated
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Terminated
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`cv-00497 (D. Del.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. JVCKENWOOD
`Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00498 (D. Del.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Nikon Corporation, et al.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00499 (D. Del.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Olympus Corporation, et
`al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00500 (D. Del.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Panasonic Corporation,
`et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00501 (D. Del.)
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.
`KG, Case. No. 3:15-cv-02101 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Terminated
`
`Pending
`
`Terminated
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`Exhibit B
`Status of Petitions for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 or
`Related Patents
`
`
`Caption
`No.
`IPR2016-01199 Fujifilm Corporation et al. v. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`IPR2016-01200 Fujifilm Corporation et al. v. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`IPR2016-01202 Canon Inc., Canon USA Inc., and
`Canon Financial Services, Inc. v.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01206 Canon Inc., Canon USA Inc., and
`Canon Financial Services, Inc. v.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01211 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01212 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`
`
`
`1
`
`Status
`Patent
`8,966,144 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`Written
`Decision
`8,504,746 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`Written
`Decision
`Institution
`Denied
`
`8,966,144
`
`8,504,746
`
`Institution
`Denied
`
`8,504,746 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`Written
`Decision
`
`8,966,144 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`Written
`Decision
`
`8,504,746 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`Written
`Decision
`
`8,966,144 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`Written
`Decision
`
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01213 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01214 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`8,966,144 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`Written
`Decision
`
`8,966,144
`
`Institution
`Denied
`
`8,504,746
`
`Institution
`Denied
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01216 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01222 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01223 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01224 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2016-01225 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm
`Holdings America Corporation,
`Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood
`Corporation, JVC Kenwood USA
`Corporation, Nikon Corporation,
`Nikon Inc., Olympus Corporation,
`Olympus America Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`4
`
`IPR2016-01733
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`8,504,746
`
`Institution
`Denied
`
`8,966,144 Trial
`Instituted –
`Final
`Written
`Decision
`
`9,189,437 Trial
`Instituted
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01839 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01840 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01841 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01842 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01843 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01844 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01849 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01860 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01862 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01863 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2016-01864 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2017-00154 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2017-00156 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2017-00158 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2017-00415 Huawei Device Co., Ltd., LG
`Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA)
`Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH &
`Co. KG
`IPR2017-00443 Huawei Device Co., Ltd., LG
`Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA)
`Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH &
`Co. KG
`IPR2017-00448 Huawei Device Co., Ltd., LG
`Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA)
`Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH &
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`9,189,437
`
`9,189,437
`
`6,470,399
`
`9,189,437
`
`8,966,144
`
`6,470,399 Trial
`Instituted
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`9,189,437 Trial
`Instituted
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`8,966,144 Trial
`Instituted
`Institution
`Denied
`8,504,746 Trial
`Instituted
`6,470,399 Trial
`Instituted
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`6,895,449 Trial
`Instituted
`
`8,504,746
`
`8,966,144
`
`9,189,437
`
`8,504,746
`
`6,470,399 Trial
`Instituted
`
`6,895,449
`
`Institution
`Denied
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00672
`
`IPR2017-00678
`
`IPR2017-00711
`
`IPR2017-00712
`
`Co. KG
`IPR2017-00449 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2017-00670 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2017-00679 Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH
`& Co. KG
`IPR2017-00710 Huawei Device Co. Ltd. v. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbG & Co. KG
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`IPR2017-00713
`
`IPR2017-00714
`
`IPR2017-01038
`
`IPR2017-01617 Olympus Corporation and Olympus
`American Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG
`
`IPR2017-01682 Olympus Corporation and Olympus
`America Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG
`
`IPR2017-01808 Olympus Corporation, Olympus
`America Inc., Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`8,504,746
`
`Institution
`Denied
`8,966,144 Terminated
`
`8,966,144 Terminated
`
`8,504,746 Terminated
`
`8,966,144 Terminated
`
`9,189,437
`
`8,966,144
`
`8,504,746 Trial
`Instituted
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`6,895,449 Trial
`Instituted
`6,470,399 Trial
`Instituted
`9,189,437 Trial
`Instituted –
`joined with
`IPR2016-
`01733
`6,895,449 Trial
`Instituted –
`joined with
`IPR2017-
`00415
`6,470,399 Trial
`Instituted –
`joined with
`IPR2017-
`00443
`6,470,399 Trial
`Instituted –
`joined with
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`IPR2017-
`00714
`6,895,449 Pending-
`Filed After
`Joinder
`Deadline
`
`America, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG
`IPR2018-00410 Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`Canon Financial Services, Inc.,
`Nikon Corporation, Nikon Inc.,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`and Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. v.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`