`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: August 25, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE USA, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00670
`Patent 7,777,753 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Termination of the Proceeding and Dismissal of Joinder Motion
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74, and 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00670
`Patent 7,777,753 B2
`
`
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`On August 19, 2016, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate this
`proceeding (Paper 10), a true copy of the Parties’ settlement agreement (Ex. 2001),
`and a request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information
`under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (Paper 12).
`This proceeding is still in its preliminary stages. On February, 26, 2016,
`Petitioner, ZTE USA, Incorporated (“ZTE”), filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’753
`patent”). Paper 2. ZTE filed its Petition along with a Motion for Joinder
`requesting that we join ZTE as a party with HTC Corp. et al. v. Parthenon Unified
`Memory Architecture LLC, Case IPR2015-01501. Paper 3. Patent Owner,
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture, Limited Liability Company, did not file a
`Preliminary Response in this proceeding. We have not entered a decision whether
`or not to institute an inter partes review.
`In the Joint Motion to Terminate this proceeding, the Parties represent that
`they have settled all of their disputes regarding the ’753 patent. Paper 11, 2. The
`Parties further represent that the ’753 patent was asserted against multiple
`companies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Id.
`In addition to this proceeding, the Parties represent that they are involved in the
`following proceedings before the Board: (1) Case IPR2016-00664; (2) Case
`IPR2016-00665; (3) Case IPR2016-0666; and (4) Case IPR2016-00667. Id. at 3.
`According to the Parties, they are in the process of filing a Joint Motion to
`Terminate in each of these proceedings. Id. Lastly, the Parties represent that the
`’753 patent remains at issue in the following proceedings before the Board:
`(1) Case IPR2015-01501 and (2) Case IPR2016-01114. Id. Under these particular
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00670
`Patent 7,777,753 B2
`
`
`circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding
`without rendering any further decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`II. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Parties’ request to treat the settlement agreement
`(Ex. 2001) as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate this proceeding is
`granted, and this proceeding is hereby terminated; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this proceeding has been terminated,
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder is dismissed as moot.
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Shaobin Zhu
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`shaobin.zhu@finnegan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Masood Anjom
`Amir Alavi
`Scott Clark
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`manjom@azalaw.com
`aalavi@azalaw.com
`sclark@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
