`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: April 25, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00880
`Case IPR2017-00881
`Case IPR2017-00882
`Case IPR2017-008831
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, 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 entered in each
`case.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00880, IPR2017-00881, IPR2017-00882, IPR2017-00883
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
`petition in each of the instant proceedings. See IPR2017-00880, Paper 8
`(“Mot.”); IPR2017-00881, Paper 8; IPR2017-00882, Paper 8;
`IPR2017-00883, Paper 8.2 Petitioner states that it filed a second set of
`petitions in Cases IPR2017-00921, IPR2017-00922, IPR2017-00923, and
`IPR2017-00924 that include the same challenges and cited evidence as the
`petitions in the instant proceedings, but identify an additional real
`party-in-interest (GlobalFoundries, Inc.). Mot. 1–3. 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 2–3. 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, and the Board has not decided whether
`to institute a trial based on any of the petitions. 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 proceedings, we determine
`that it is appropriate to dismiss the petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a),
`42.71(a).
`
`
`2 The motions to dismiss present similar arguments and similar facts. We
`refer to the motion filed in Case IPR2017-00880 for convenience.
`3 The parties have not settled their dispute.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00880, IPR2017-00881, IPR2017-00882, IPR2017-00883
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00880, IPR2017-00881, IPR2017-00882, IPR2017-00883
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Christopher P. Carroll
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`christopher.carroll@whitecase.com
`setienne@whitecase.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew N. Thomases
`Jordan M. Rossen
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`jordan.rossen@ropesgray.com
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`
`4
`
`