throbber
IPR2015-01390
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD and HUAWEI ENTERPRISE USA
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SPHERIX INCORPORATED
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01390
`
`Patent 7,664,123
`
`__________________
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING
`
`AND
`
`JOINT REQUEST TO TREAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`AS BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01390
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), Petitioners Huawei Technologies Co., LTD and Huawei
`
`Enterprise USA (“Huawei”) and Patent Owners Spherix Incorporated and NNPT, LLC.
`
`(“Spherix”) jointly request termination of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,123,
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01390.
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION
`
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a
`
`settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`The Board authorized the filing of the instant joint motion and request in an email dated
`
`September 15, 2015. In that email, the Board set a date of September 23, 2015 for the filing of
`
`this motion and the settlement agreement. In a further email, dated September 16, 2015, the
`
`Board indicated that the panel is aware that the parties intend to file this motion and settlement
`
`agreement. The email of September 16 further indicates that the panel intends to wait to receive
`
`the motions before acting on the case.
`
`IPR2013-00428, Paper No. 56, provides guidance as to the content of a motion to
`
`terminate. There, the Board indicates that a joint motion, such as this one, should (1) include a
`
`brief explanation as to why termination is appropriate; (2) identify all parties in any related
`
`litigation involving the patent at issue; (3) identify any related proceedings currently before the
`
`Office, and (4) discuss specifically the current status of each such related litigation or proceeding
`
`with respect to each party to the litigation or proceeding. Id. at 2. This motion satisfies each of the
`
`above requirements and is accompanied by a true copy of the Parties’ fully-executed settlement
`
`agreement, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01390
`
`(1)
`
`Brief Explanation of Why Termination is Appropriate.
`
`Petitioners filed their petition for Inter Partes Review on June 11, 2015. Patent Owner
`
`has not filed a preliminary response, and one is not due until September 26, 2015. Termination is
`
`appropriate because the Parties have settled their dispute and reached agreement to terminate this
`
`Inter Partes Review proceeding, and this Inter Partes Review has not been instituted.
`
`(2)
`
`All Parties in Any Pending Related Litigation Involving the Patent at Issue.
`
`Petitioners and Patent Owner are parties in a related district court litigation, Huawei
`
`Investment & Holding Co., Ltd.; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.; Huawei Device (Hong Kong)
`
`Co., Ltd.; Huawei Device USA Inc.; Huawei Technologies USA Inc.; Huawei Technologies
`
`Cooperatif U.A. and Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-677 (E.D. Texas),
`
`which the parties also have settled.
`
`(3)
`
`Related Proceedings Currently Before the Office.
`
`Aside from this Inter Partes Review proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 7,664,123 is not
`
`involved in any other proceeding currently before the Office.
`
`(4)
`
`Current Status of Each Such Related Litigation or Proceeding With Respect
`to Each Party to the Litigation or Proceeding.
`
`As indicated above, the Parties have settled their dispute in the related district court
`
`litigation.
`
`SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), the Parties’ settlement
`
`agreement has been made in writing, and a true and correct copy is being filed concurrently
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01390
`
`herewith as Exhibit A. The settlement agreement is being filed via the Patent Review Processing
`
`System (PRPS) with access to “Parties and Board Only.”
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and the Board’s authorization of
`
`the filing of this joint request in its email to the Parties on September 15, 2015, the Parties jointly
`
`request that the true copy of the settlement agreement filed concurrently herewith be treated as
`
`business confidential information, which shall be kept separate from the file of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,664,123. The Parties further request the Board to not make the settlement agreement available to
`
`any third party, except as provided for in 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all of these reasons, Petitioners and Patent Owner respectfully request termination of
`
`the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,123, Case No. IPR 2015-01390.
`
`As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), because Petitioners and Patent Owner request this
`
`termination as to Petitioners, no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) shall attach to Petitioners.
`
`Date: September 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Counsel for Spherix:
`
`By: /s/ Donald McPhail
`Donald McPhail, Reg. No. 35,811
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1627 I Street NW, Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20006
`Phone: (202) 912-4837
`Facsimile: (202) 640-5916
`Email: DMcphail@cozen.com
`
`Counsel for Huawei:
`
`By: /s/ M. Scott Fuller
`M. Scott Fuller, Reg. No. 54716
`Locke Lord LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01390
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (214) 740-8601
`Fax: (214) 756-8601
`sfuller@lockelord.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5

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