`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00179
`Patent 9,648,132 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00179
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, Petitioner Triller,
`
`Inc. (“Triller” or “Petitioner”) and Patent Owner TikTok Pte. Ltd. (“TikTok” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) jointly request termination of inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,648,132 (the “’132 Patent”) in IPR2022-00179 and request that the
`
`settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board authorized the parties to file this Joint Request
`
`on September 28, 2022, via email.
`
`I.
`
`Termination of Case No. IPR2022-00179 Would Be Appropriate.
`
`Termination of IPR2022-00179 by the Board would be appropriate. The
`
`parties have executed a settlement agreement that resolves all of their disputes
`
`concerning the ’132 Patent—expressly including the present IPR—and the Board
`
`has not yet rendered its final decision in the proceeding. Furthermore, the Board
`
`should terminate IPR2022-00179 because termination of the present inter partes
`
`review would resolve all presently pending disputes between the parties pertaining
`
`to the ’132 Patent, because the district court case between the parties involving the
`
`’132 Patent has been dismissed, no further litigation or other proceedings involving
`
`the ’132 Patent are contemplated by either party, and because both Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owner agree that this inter partes review should be terminated.
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to terminate this proceeding based on settlement as
`
`the Board has not yet rendered its final decision in this proceeding. Moreover, no
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00179
`
`public interest or other factors militate against termination of this proceeding,
`
`especially where the Board seeks to favor settlement between parties in an IPR
`
`proceeding.
`
`As set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, the agreement has
`
`been made in writing in the form of a settlement agreement executed by the parties,
`
`and a true and correct copy of that settlement agreement has been filed as Exhibit
`
`2007.
`
`The parties hereby represent that the document filed as Exhibit 2007
`
`represents all agreements made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the
`
`termination of this proceeding. The parties note that although section 6.9 of the
`
`settlement agreement refers to “attachments,” there are no attachments to the
`
`agreement and Exhibit 2007 represents the entirety of the agreement between the
`
`parties in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of this
`
`proceeding. All such agreements have been filed with the Board as required by §
`
`317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
`
`As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), because Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`request this termination, no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) shall attach as to
`
`Petitioner.
`
`Submitted concurrently herewith is a request by Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, be
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00179
`
`kept separate from the file of the involved patents, and be made available only to
`
`Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of
`
`good cause pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Conclusion
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00179
`
`Therefore, Petitioner and Patent Owner respectfully request termination of the
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,132, Case No. IPR2022-00179.
`
`Dated: September 28, 2022
`
`Dated: September 29, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Chad Nydegger/
`Chad E. Nydegger, Reg. No. 61,020
`Brian N. Platt, Reg. No. 62,249
`David R. Todd, Reg. No. 41,348
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`60 East South Temple, Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`Telephone: 801-533-9800
`Facsimile: 801-328-1707
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`By: /Patrick J. Bisenius/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Dan Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Patrick J. Bisenius, Reg. No. 63,893
`Craig A. Deutsch, Reg. No. 69,264
`Kim H. Leung, Reg. No. 64,399
`Adam J. Kessel, Pro Hac Vice
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00179
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned hereby certifies that on
`
`September 29, 2022, a copy of the foregoing Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding
`
`Pursuant To 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 was served via electronic mail,
`
`on the following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Chad E. Nydegger (Reg. No. 61,020)
`Brian N. Platt (Reg. No. 62,249)
`David R. Todd (Reg. No. 41,348)
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`60 East South Temple, Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`
`Email:
`cnydegger@wnlaw.com
`bplatt@wnlaw.com
`dtodd@wnlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael Stanwyck/
`Michael Stanwyck
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(617) 956-5938
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`