`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: December 12, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AND
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, 1
`Petitioner,
`v.
`LS CLOUD STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2023-00120, IPR2023-00733
`Patent 10,154,092 B2
`
`
`Before LARRY J. HUME and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Settlement as to Cisco Systems, Inc.
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cisco Systems, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon
`Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC, filed a petition in
`IPR2023-00733, and were joined as parties in this proceeding, IPR2023-
`00120. Google and Microsoft have since been terminated as parties.
`Paper 17 (Google), Paper 19 (Microsoft).
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00120, IPR2023-00733
`Patent 10,154,092 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google LLC (“Google”) filed a Petition seeking institution of an inter
`partes review of claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’092 patent”). Paper 2. After reviewing the Petition and Patent
`Owner’s preliminary response (Paper 6), we instituted an inter partes
`review. Paper 7.
`After institution, Cisco Systems, Inc., Microsoft Corporation,
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services
`LLC (collectively “Cisco et al.”), filed a petition and a joinder motion in
`IPR2023-00733, requesting that Cisco et al. be joined as a petitioner in
`IPR2023-00120. Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies LLC,
`IPR2023-00733, Paper 1 (petition), Paper 5 (joinder motion). After
`considering the parties’ papers, we instituted trial in IPR2023-00733,
`granted Cisco et al.’s joinder motion, and added Cisco et al. as a petitioner to
`IPR2023-00120. Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies LLC,
`IPR2023-00733 Paper 10 (Institution Decision). In addition, we entered a
`copy of that decision in IPR2023-00120. Paper 10. Subsequently, after a
`joint request by Petitioner Google and Patent Owner, we entered an Order to
`terminate this proceeding as to Petitioner Google (Paper 14), and after a
`request by Petitioner Microsoft and Patent Owner, we entered an Order to
`terminate this proceeding as to Petitioner Microsoft (Paper 19).
`On December 7, 2023, pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner Cisco
`Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “Cisco”) and Patent Owner filed a Joint Motion to
`Terminate as to Petitioner Cisco. Paper 17 (“Motion” or “Mot.”).2 As
`
`
`2 We note Patent Owner filed a Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 17) in
`IPR2023-00120 consisting of 5 pages, and Petitioner filed a slightly different
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00120, IPR2023-00733
`Patent 10,154,092 B2
`evidence of settlement, Cisco and Patent Owner also filed a copy of an
`“Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendant with Prejudice” (“Agreed
`Stipulation”) with the district court in the Western District of Texas
`(IPR2023-00120, Ex. 2003), and a copy of a “Report on the Filing or
`Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark” filed with the
`USPTO by the Deputy Clerk of the Court. Ex. 2004.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`In the Motion, Cisco and Patent Owner state that they have settled
`their dispute with respect to IPR2023-00120 and IPR2023-00733 and with
`respect to the related district court litigation styled LS Cloud Storage Tech.,
`LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 6:22-cv-00845-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Mot. 1.
`With the Motion, we note that neither Cisco nor Patent Owner filed a
`copy of a document styled as a settlement agreement. However, Cisco and
`Patent Owner submit that Exhibit 2003, styled “Agreed Stipulation,” is a
`true copy of a document representing the parties’ agreement to terminate this
`proceeding, and represent that “[t]here are no other agreements, oral or
`written, between the parties made in connection with, or in contemplation of,
`the termination of the proceedings.” Mot. 2.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n 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, unless the Office has decided
`the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” Any
`agreement or understanding “made in connection with, or in contemplation
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate (IPR2023-00733, Paper 13) consisting of 8 pages.
`These two joint motions, while not identical, are substantively the same. We
`refer to Paper 17 of IPR2023-00120 in our Order.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00120, IPR2023-00733
`Patent 10,154,092 B2
`of, the termination of an inter partes review” must be in writing, and a true
`copy of any such documents must be filed in the Office before termination.
`Id. § 317(b); accord 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
`Because Cisco and Patent Owner jointly request termination and have
`submitted what they represent to be a true copy of the document reflecting
`their agreement in contemplation of termination in compliance with the
`applicable requirements, and because we have not yet issued a final written
`decision, we terminate the inter partes review with respect to Petitioner
`Cisco. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com
`Services, LLC (collectively “Amazon” or “the Amazon entities”), the
`remaining joined Petitioners in IPR2023-00120, are not a party to the
`Agreed Stipulation and did not join the Motion. Accordingly, IPR2023-
`00120 remains pending as to Petitioner Amazon.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to terminate with respect to
`Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc., only is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Amazon entities will remain as a
`petitioner, and the case caption for all further submissions in shall be
`changed to remove named Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc., and to indicate by
`footnote the termination of Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc., to this
`proceeding, as indicated in the attached sample case caption in IPR2023-
`00120; and
`FURTHER ORDERED this paper does not constitute a final written
`decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00120, IPR2023-00733
`Patent 10,154,092 B2
`For PETITIONERS:
`
`James T. Carmichael
`Minghui Yang
`CARMICHAEL IP, PLLC
`jim@carmichaelip.com
`mitch@carmichaelip.com
`
`Brian Ferguson
`Juan Yaquian
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`beferguson@winston.com
`jyaquian@winston.com
`
`Brian Nash
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`bnash@mofo.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`William P. Ramey, III
`Jacob B. Henry
`RAMEY LLP
`wramey@rameyfirm.com
`jhenry@rameyfirm.com
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`LS CLOUD STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00120, IPR2023-007333
`Patent 10,154,092 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Petitioners Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Patent Owner each filed
`respective approved Joint Motions to Terminate as to Petitioners Google,
`Microsoft, and Cisco. Accordingly, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web
`Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC, collectively “Amazon,” or
`“the Amazon entities” remain as Petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`