`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc., OLYMPUS CORPORATION
`AND OLYMPUS AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`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 OLYMPUS CORPORATION
`AND OLYMPUS AMERICA, INC.
`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 December 22, 2017, Petitioner Olympus Corporation and
`
`Olympus America, Inc. (collectively, “Olympus”) 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 Olympus in light of
`
`Patent Owner and Olympus’ settlement of their disputes.
`
`Olympus and Patent Owner are concurrently filing a true and complete copy
`
`of their written Settlement Agreement (Confidential Exhibit 2012) in connection
`
`with this matter as required by statute. Olympus 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
`
`Olympus. 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
`
`Olympus is appropriate because (1) Olympus and Patent Owner have settled their
`
`disputes and have agreed to terminate the proceeding with respect to Olympus, (2)
`
`the Office has not yet decided the merits of the proceeding, (3) the proceeding is
`
`expected to continue with Petitioner ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE”), and (4) public
`
`policy favors the termination.
`
`First, the Settlement Agreement completely resolves the controversy
`
`between Patent Owner and Olympus relating to the ’399 patent. Olympus
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`Corporation and Olympus America, Inc., which are two of the real parties in
`
`interest in the present proceeding, were named defendants in 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. Olympus Corporation, et al., Case
`
`No. 1:15-cv-00500 (D. Del.) and Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. Kg v. Olympus
`
`Corp., Case No. 1:07-cv-02086 (D. Del.). On December 21, 2017, Olympus and
`
`Papst filed a motion requesting that all claims against the Olympus entities and all
`
`counterclaims by the Olympus entities be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`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, Olympus has joined in this IPR proceeding and ZTE is the remaining
`
`Petitioner (ZTE has also reached a settlement in principle with Patent Owner).
`
`ZTE is not a party to the Settlement Agreement and the parties have not requested
`
`that the proceeding be terminated with respect to ZTE. This termination will not
`
`impact petitioner ZTE and the proceeding is therefore expected to continue with
`
`ZTE as a petitioner (until such time as ZTE finalizes its settlement with Patent
`
`Owner).
`
`Fourth, public policy favors the termination. As recognized by the rules of
`
`practice before the Board:
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`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 Olympus.
`
`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, Olympus and Patent Owner jointly and
`
`respectfully request that the instant proceeding be terminated with respect to
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Olympus.
`
`
`Date: December 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`By: /s/ Dion M. Bregman
`
`Dion M. Bregman
`Registration No. 45,645
`MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 90071
`(650) 843-7519
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners Olympus
`Corporation and Olympus America, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Registration No. 47,531
`DiNovo Price LLP
`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
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`Terminated
`
`Pending/Stayed
`
`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-
`
`Terminated
`
`Terminated
`
`Pending
`
`Terminated
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`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.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Olympus Corporation, et
`al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00415 (D.Del.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Samsung Techwin Co., et
`al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04940 (D.N.J.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Nikon Corporation, et al.,
`Case No. 1:08-cv-02510 (N.D. Ill.)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Canon Inc., et al., Case
`No. 1:08-cv-03609 (N.D. Ill.)
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.,
`KG, Case No. 5:08-cv-01732 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Terminated
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`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
`
`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. and ZTE
`Corporation v. Papst Licensing
`GmbG & Co. KG
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`IPR2017-00712
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 –
`
`
`
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG
`
`IPR2017-00443
`
`joined with
`IPR2017-
`00714
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`