`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00534
`Patent 5,894,506
`
`____________
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00534
`Patent No. 5,894,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), Google Inc. (“Google” or “Petitioner”) and
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”) (jointly, the
`
`“Parties”) jointly request termination of IPR2017-00534, which is directed to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,894,506 (“the ’506 Patent”).
`
`On December 28, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”) before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Patent
`
`Owner’s preliminary response is not due until April 20, 2017. The United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has not yet issued a Decision to Institute
`
`inter partes review of the ’506 Patent. The Parties have settled their dispute, and
`
`have reached agreement to terminate this inter partes review.
`
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing
`
`of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Board authorized the filing of the
`
`instant Motion on April 18, 2017. IPR2013-00428, Paper No. 56 provides
`
`guidance as to the content of a motion to terminate. There, the Board indicates
`
`that a joint motion, such as this one, should (1) include a brief explanation as to
`
`why termination is appropriate; (2) identify all parties in any related litigation
`
`involving the patents at issue, and the status of each; and (3) identify any related
`
`proceedings currently before the Office. IPR2013-00428, Paper No. 56 at 2. This
`
`Motion satisfies each of the above requirements.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00534
`Patent No. 5,894,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Indeed, the Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement, and a true
`
`copy of the same is attached hereto as Exhibit 2001, as required by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).1 The Parties desire that the Settlement
`
`Agreement (Exhibit 2001) be maintained as business confidential information
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c) and a separate joint request to that effect is being filed
`
`on even date herewith.
`
`1. Reasons Why Termination is Appropriate.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this
`
`chapter 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.”
`
`Because the parties are jointly requesting termination and the Office has not
`
`yet “decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is
`
`filed,” termination of the inter partes review in its entirety is warranted. See, e.g.,
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01576, Paper No. 9, p. 2 (P.T.A.B. January 19, 2017). Within the context of
`
`Section 317(a), a decision on the merits must be something beyond a decision
`
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement is being filed electronically via the Patent Review
`
`Processing System (PRPS) as “Parties and Board Only.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00534
`Patent No. 5,894,506
`
`instituting trial. Otherwise the quoted phrase would be rendered meaningless
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`because every “inter partes review instituted under this chapter” originates with a
`
`decision instituting trial. Here, no decision on the merits has been made, and “this
`
`proceeding is in its initial stages.” Microsoft Corp. v. Mobile Telecommunications
`
`Technologies, LLC, IPR2015-01581, Paper No. 9, p. 2 (P.T.A.B. January 19,
`
`2017). Moreover, Petitioner, Google, does not oppose Patent Owner in seeking
`
`termination of this inter partes review proceeding altogether. Accordingly, the
`
`Parties jointly request that the USPTO terminate this inter partes review in its
`
`entirety for reasons similar to those identified by the Board in the above-cited
`
`cases (IPR2015-01576 at Paper No. 9; IPR2015-01581 at Paper No. 9).
`
`2. All parties in any pending related litigation involving the patents at
`issue, and current status of each such related litigation.
`
`
`
`Petitioner is involved in a pending related litigation involving the ’506 Patent.
`
`However, as indicated in the table below, that litigation is also resolved by the
`
`parties settlement agreement.
`
`Case Name
`Mobile
`Telecommunications
`Technologies LLC v.
`Google Inc.
`
`Case No.
`2.16-cv-
`00002-
`JRG-RSP
`
`Court
`EDTX
`Marshall
`
`
`
`Defendants
`Google Inc.
`
`Status
`Settled
`
`3. Related proceedings currently before the Office and Status.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00534
`Patent No. 5,894,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Aside from this inter partes review proceeding, the ’506 Patent is also the
`
`subject of the following proceeding(s) currently before the Office:
`
`Related
`Proceeding
`IPR2017-00532
`
`Google Inc.
`
`Requestor/Petitioner
`
`Status
`
`IPR2017-00533
`
`Google Inc.
`
`IPR2017-00535
`
`Google Inc.
`
`
`
`Motion to terminate filed
`concurrently
`
`Motion to terminate filed
`concurrently
`
`Motion to terminate filed
`concurrently
`
`Accordingly, as discussed above, the Parties jointly request termination of
`
`IPR2017-00534, which is directed to the ’506 Patent.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/John R. Kasha/
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel. 703-867-1886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael T. Hawkins/
`Michael T. Hawkins
`(Reg. No. 57,867)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`320 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel. 612-337-2569
`
`5
`
`Case IPR2017-00534
`Patent No. 5,894,506
`
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(f), a copy of Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate Proceeding Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 and the supporting exhibits
`
`filed by the Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC on April 20, 2017
`
`was duly served via electronic mail upon IPR19473-0348IP3@fr.com (Ref. 19473-
`
`0348IP3), PTABInbound@fr.com, hawkins@fr.com (Michael T. Hawkins),
`
`bisenius@fr.com (Patrick J. Bisenius), and nstephens@fr.com (Nicholas Stephens)
`
`- counsel of record for Google Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/John R. Kasha/
`John R. Kasha (Reg. No. 53,100)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel. 703-867-1886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`