IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
