`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01269
`U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER MICROSOFT
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, Petitioner Microsoft
`
`Corporation and Patent Owner Synkloud Technologies LLC jointly request to
`
`terminate Microsoft’s participation in the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,219,780 (“the ’780 Patent”), Case No. IPR2020-01269. For the avoidance of
`
`doubt, only Microsoft is requesting to be terminated from this proceeding pursuant
`
`to this joint motion—Petitioner HP still remains a party to the proceeding.
`
`Microsoft and Synkloud are also jointly requesting termination of Microsoft from
`
`the following related proceedings, each of which are pending following institution:
`
`IPR2020-01031, IPR2020-01032, IPR2020-01270, IPR2020-01271.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`On November 2, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement with
`
`regard to the patents at issue in these proceedings. Microsoft and SynKloud now
`
`desire that Microsoft withdraw from this review and request its termination as to
`
`Microsoft. On November 5, 2021, the parties jointly requested authorization to file
`
`a motion to terminate and to file a request to treat the settlement agreement as
`
`confidential information. On the November 8, 2021, the Board granted authority to
`
`file a Joint Motion to Terminate and Joint Request that the Settlement Agreement be
`
`Treated as Business Confidential Information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Termination of Microsoft is Appropriate
`
`Termination is appropriate because Petitioner Microsoft desires to abandon
`
`this contest, and Patent Owner does not oppose termination of the proceeding with
`
`respect to Microsoft. 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) (“An inter partes review instituted under
`
`this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request
`
`of the petitioner and the patent owner”). The parties have also filed a true copy of
`
`the written settlement agreement made in connection with the request for
`
`termination, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`Finally, termination of Microsoft from this proceeding encourages settlement
`
`consistent with judicial economy and preference.
`
`The settlement agreement between Microsoft and Synkloud is in writing and a
`
`true and correct copy of the agreement as Exhibit 1042, is filed concurrently with the
`
`present motion as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), a Joint Request that the Settlement Agreement be
`
`Treated as Business Confidential Information is submitted herewith.
`
`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.”). The Federal Circuit
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`also places a particularly strong emphasis on settlement. See Flex-Foot, Inc. v. CRP,
`
`Inc., 238 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Upholding the terms of settlement
`
`agreements encourages patent owners to agree to settlements and promotes judicial
`
`economy.”); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. U.S., 806 F.2d 1046, 1050 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986) (noting that the law favors settlement to reduce antagonism and hostility
`
`between parties).
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the parties jointly and respectfully request
`
`termination of the proceeding with respect to Petitioner Microsoft in Case No.
`
`IPR2020-01269.
`
`Dated: November 11, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`By: /s/ Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`Reg. No. 43,639
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th St, Unit 4, NW
`Washington, DC 20009
`Phone: 571-419-7252
`Email:gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yeasun Yoon
`Reg. No: 73,663
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th St, Unit 4, NW
`Washington, DC 20009
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 11th day of
`
`November, 2021, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing and
`
`any accompanying exhibits by electronic mail on the following counsel:
`
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves - gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`Yeasun Yoon - yoon@capitoliplaw.com
`
`Dated: November 11, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Francis Quaynor/
`Francis Quaynor
`Paralegal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`