`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`OBALON THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLYZEN, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00812
`U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306
`_____________
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sd-705106
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00812 (Patent 7,682,306)
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization via e-mail (August 18, 2017,
`
`1:44 p.m. PDT), Patent Owner Polyzen, Inc. (“Polyzen”) and Petitioner
`
`Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (“Obalon”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have
`
`reached a settlement and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.74(c), jointly request termination of this inter partes review proceeding.
`
`I. Statement of Facts
`
`The Parties have settled their disputes and have executed a settlement
`
`agreement to terminate this proceeding, as well as IPR2017-0813 and
`
`IPR2017-01023, and have executed a settlement agreement to terminate
`
`related district court litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306, Polyzen,
`
`Inc. v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Southern
`
`District of California, Case No. 3:17-cv-01357-JAH-WVG.
`
`Polyzen and Obalon are the parties in the related district court
`
`litigation, and a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice is concurrently being
`
`filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`
`California.
`
`In accordance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), the Parties’
`
`settlement agreements are in writing, and true and correct copies are being
`
`filed as Exhibit 1013 and 1014 in this proceeding. The settlement
`
`agreements are being filed electronically with access to “Parties and Board
`
`sd-705106
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00812 (Patent 7,682,306)
`
`Only.” A “Joint Request to Keep Separate Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74” is being filed concurrently with this Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate to constitute the settlement agreements as business confidential
`
`information and to keep them separate from the files of the involved patent,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306, and be made available only to Federal
`
`Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of
`
`good cause pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,682,306 is not involved in any other litigation or
`
`other proceeding. Aside from IPR2017-0813 and IPR2017-01023, in each of
`
`which a Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding is also being filed, there are
`
`no pending, related inter partes review proceedings. The parties certify that
`
`there are no collateral agreements or understandings made in connection
`
`with, or in contemplation of, the termination of this inter partes review, and
`
`that the Settlement and License Agreement and Inter Partes Review
`
`Proceedings Settlement Agreement reflect the final settlement and resolution
`
`of all disputes between Patent Owner and Petitioner regarding this inter
`
`partes review. No litigation or proceeding involving the subject patents is
`
`contemplated in the foreseeable future.
`
`
`
`
`
`sd-705106
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00812 (Patent 7,682,306)
`
`II. Relief Requested
`
`Termination of this inter partes review proceeding as to both parties is
`
`requested. The parties respectfully submit that such termination is justified.
`
`The statutory provision on settlement relating to inter partes reviews
`
`provides that an inter partes review “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). It also provides that, “[i]f no
`
`petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the
`
`review...” Id.
`
`Because the Board has not decided the merits of the present inter
`
`partes review proceeding, Section 317 provides that the inter partes review
`
`proceeding shall be terminated at least with respect to Obalon. Moreover,
`
`because Obalon is the only petitioner in this inter partes review proceeding,
`
`after termination, no petitioner will remain, and the Office may terminate the
`
`review proceeding in its entirety under Section 317.
`
`Termination as to both parties would avoid substantial further
`
`expenditure of resources by the Board and the USPTO, as well as by
`
`Polyzen and Obalon. Termination as to both parties upon settlement as
`
`requested would also further the purpose of inter partes review proceedings
`
`sd-705106
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00812 (Patent 7,682,306)
`
`to provide an efficient and less costly alternative forum for patent disputes.
`
`Additionally, maintaining
`
`the proceeding would discourage
`
`further
`
`settlements, as patent owners in similar situations would have a strong
`
`disincentive to settle if they perceived that an inter partes review proceeding
`
`would continue regardless of a settlement.
`
`Indeed, the Board has stated an expectation that proceedings such as
`
`these will be terminated after the filing of a settlement agreement: “[t]here
`
`are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the parties to a
`
`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. 35 U.S.C. 317(a), as amended….” Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Additionally, Congress and the federal courts have expressed a strong
`
`interest in encouraging settlement in litigation. See, e.g., Delta Air Lines,
`
`Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 352 (1981) (“The purpose of [Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure] 68 is to encourage the settlement of litigation.”); Bergh v.
`
`Dept. of Transp., 794 F.2d 1575, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The law favors
`
`settlement of cases.”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 950 (1986). For at least these
`
`reasons, the Board’s expectation that such proceedings should be terminated
`
`is proper and well justified here.
`
`sd-705106
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00812 (Patent 7,682,306)
`
`In light of the foregoing, termination of this proceeding as to both
`
`parties is warranted. As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.73(d), because Patent Owner and Petitioner jointly request this
`
`termination, no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) shall attach to the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`III. Further Participation
`
`Patent Owner Polyzen will continue to participate in IPR2017-00812
`
`if this Joint Motion to Terminate is not granted. Petitioner Obalon will not
`
`participate further in IPR2017-00812.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sd-705106
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00812 (Patent 7,682,306)
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For at least the reasons stated above, the Parties jointly request
`
`termination of this proceeding in its entirety as to both Petitioner Obalon and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By / Peng Chen /
`Peng Chen
`pchen@mofo.com
`Registration No. 43,543
`Desmond O’Sullivan
`dosullivan@mofo.com
`Registration No. 67,576
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`12531 High Bluff Ave, Suite 100
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5100
`
`Patent Owner Polyzen.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By / Steven J. Hultquist /
`Steven J. Hultquist
`
`hultquist@hultquistip.com
`Registration No. 28,021
`Mary B. Grant
`
`
`mgrant@hultquistip.com
`Registration No. 32,176
`HULTQUIST IP
`
`1414 Raleigh Rd., Suite 201
`Chapel Hill, NC 27517
`
`(919) 419-9350
`
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sd-705106
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00812 (Patent 7,682,306)
`
`Certificate of Service (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4))
`
`I hereby certify that the attached JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) was served as of the
`
`below date by electronic mail, on the Patent Owner at the following
`
`correspondence address:
`
`Steven J. Hultquist
`Reg. No. 28,021
`hultquist@hultquistip.com
`HULTQUIST IP
`P.O. Box 14329
`Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
`Phone: (919) 419-9350
`Fax: (919) 419-9354
`
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`By / Desmond O’Sullivan /
`Desmond O’Sullivan
`dosullivan@mofo.com
`Registration No. 67,576
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`12531 High Bluff Ave, Suite 100
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sd-705106
`
`