`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 24
`
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, Inc.
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE (USA), Inc., Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`__________
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PETITIONERS PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Petitioners
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a), Petitioners ZTE
`
`Corporation, and ZTE (USA), Inc. (“Petitioners” or “ZTE”) and Patent Owner
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE”) (collectively, “the Parties”)
`
`jointly request termination of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 (“the
`
`‘966 Patent”). The filing of this request was authorized by Supervisory Paralegal
`
`Specialist Eric W. Hawthorne on September 10, 2018.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`ZTE and CCE have reached a Settlement Agreement to end their disputes in
`
`this proceeding, a related IPR proceeding (No. IPR2017-01509), and the underlying
`
`litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Cellular Communications Equipment LLC
`
`v. ZTE Corporation, et al., 6:16-cv-00476-RWS-KNM (E.D. Tex.)). The ‘966 Patent
`
`is not presently asserted in any other pending litigation.
`
`A true and correct copy of the Agreement is filed separately and concurrently
`
`with this motion as Exhibit 2016, along with a request to treat the Agreement as
`
`business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Exhibit 2016 is being
`
`filed electronically as “Board Only.” There are no other agreements, oral or written,
`
`between the parties made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination
`
`of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Relief Requested
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Petitioners
`
`Termination of this inter partes review is requested, and the parties
`
`respectfully submit that such termination is appropriate. The relevant statutory
`
`provision on settlement 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). Here, the Board has not yet decided
`
`the merits of the present inter partes review proceeding, and so under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 317(a) the proceeding should be terminated upon this joint request.
`
`In previous proceedings, the Board has granted joint motions to terminate
`
`even when a proceeding was at a late stage, such as after oral argument. For
`
`example, in Clio USA, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co, the Board terminated the
`
`proceeding after the oral hearing had already occurred because the Board had “not
`
`yet decided the merits of this proceeding.” Clio USA, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble
`
`Co., IPR2013-00438, Paper 57 at 2 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014); see also Apple Inc. v.
`
`Nagravision SA, Case IPR2015-00971, Paper 30 at 2-3 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2016)
`
`(termination request granted after oral hearing). Additionally, in Blackberry Corp.,
`
`et al. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, the Board agreed to terminate the proceeding with
`
`respect to the petitioner nearly three months after the oral hearing. Blackberry Corp.,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Petitioners
`
`et al. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-00036, Paper 64 at 2-3 (PTAB Jan. 21,
`
`2014). As such, even though the oral hearing has occurred in this proceeding, the
`
`parties respectfully submit that it is appropriate to terminate the proceeding under
`
`§ 317(a).
`
`Additionally, termination of this proceeding would further the underlying
`
`purpose of inter partes review, which is to provide an efficient and less costly
`
`alternative forum for patent disputes. Maintaining the proceeding as to ZTE,
`
`however, 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 would nevertheless continue with respect to a petitioner that has settled.
`
`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).
`
`For at least these reasons, termination of this proceeding is warranted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Petitioners
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request termination of the
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966, Case No. IPR2017-01508.
`
`Dated: September 10, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:/s/ Steven A. Moore
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No.
`55,462)
`steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP
`SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`501 W. Broadway, Suite
`1100 San Diego, CA
`92101 Telephone:
`619.544.3112
`Facsimile: 619.236.1995
`
`Brian Nash (Reg. No. 58,105)
`brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP
`SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: 512.580.9629
`Facsimile: 512.580.9601
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew C. Juren
`Matthew C. Juren
`Registration No. 68,233
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`NELSON BUMGARDNER
`ALBRITTON P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 10, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Petitioners
`
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on September 10th, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PETITIONERS to be sent via
`
`email to the following:
`
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619-544-3112
`Facsimile: 619-236-1995
`Email: steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Brian Nash (Reg. No. 58,105)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Post and Hand Delivery Address
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: 512.580.9629
`Facsimile: 512.580.9601
`Email: brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Cheng (Jack) Ko (Reg. No. 54,227)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate Petitioners
`
`Telephone: 619-544-5000
`Facsimile: 619-236-1995
`Email: jack.ko@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`Dated: September 10, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew C. Juren
`Matthew C. Juren
`Registration No. 68,233
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`NELSON BUMGARDNER
`ALBRITTON P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
