`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
`
`
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
