throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 18
`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.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket