`Entered: March 10, 2017
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-00753 and IPR2017-00757
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`Cases IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850
`Patent 7,126,174 B21
`____________
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Unopposed Motions to Dismiss
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a) and 42.71(a)
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue pertaining to all four cases. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue a single Decision to be filed in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00753 and IPR2017-00757 (Patent 6,538,324 B1)
`Cases IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850 (Patent 7,126,174 B2)
`
`
`Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
`
`petition in each of the instant proceedings. See IPR2017-00753, Paper 13
`
`(“Mot.”); IPR2017-00757, Paper 14; IPR2017-00849, Paper 11;
`
`IPR2017-00850, Paper 11.2 Petitioner states that it filed a second set of
`
`petitions in Cases IPR2017-00919, IPR2017-00920, IPR2017-00925, and
`
`IPR2017-00926 that include the same challenges and cited evidence as the
`
`petitions in the instant proceedings, but identify an additional real
`
`party-in-interest (GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.). Mot. 3, 5. Petitioner does not
`
`identify any other differences between the original and new petitions.
`
`Petitioner argues that dismissal of the petitions in the instant proceedings
`
`“would preserve the Board’s and the parties’ resources” and would not
`
`prejudice Patent Owner. Id. at 4. Petitioner further states that Patent Owner
`
`does not oppose the motions. Id. at 2.
`
`The instant proceedings are in the preliminary stage. Patent Owner
`
`has yet to file preliminary responses or oppositions to Petitioner’s motions
`
`for joinder, and the Board has not decided whether to institute a trial based
`
`on any of the petitions. Given that Petitioner filed substantially identical
`
`petitions in Cases IPR2017-00919, IPR2017-00920, IPR2017-00925, and
`
`IPR2017-00926, dismissal of the petitions in the instant proceedings at this
`
`early juncture would minimize the burden on the parties and the Board, and
`
`would “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of both sets of
`
`proceedings.3 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Based on the specific facts of these
`
`
`2 The motions to dismiss present similar arguments and similar facts. Unless
`otherwise specified, we refer to the motion filed in Case IPR2017-00753 for
`convenience.
`
`3 The parties have not settled their dispute.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00753 and IPR2017-00757 (Patent 6,538,324 B1)
`Cases IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850 (Patent 7,126,174 B2)
`
`proceedings, we determine that it is appropriate to dismiss the petitions. See
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a).
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s unopposed motion to dismiss in each of
`
`the instant proceedings is granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the petition in each of the instant
`
`proceedings is dismissed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00753 and IPR2017-00757 (Patent 6,538,324 B1)
`Cases IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850 (Patent 7,126,174 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Christopher P. Carroll
`Shamita D. Etienne-Cummings
`WHITE & CASE, LLP
`christopher.carroll@whitecase.com
`setienne@whitecase.com
`
`Kent Cooper
`LAW OFFICE OF KENT J. COOPER
`kent.cooper@kjcooperlaw.com
`
`Adam Floyd
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`floyd.adam@dorsey.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael J. Fink
`Neil F. Greenblum
`Arnold Turk
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
