UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2017-00850
`
`Patent 7,126,174 B1
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
`DISMISS PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2017-00850
`
`Patent 7,126,174 B1
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
`DISMISS PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner moves the Board for an order dismissing the above-identified
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174. Petitioner has
`
`authorization to file the present motion. See Paper No. 12. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`has conferred with counsel for Patent Owner, and Patent Owner does not oppose
`
`the relief sought by this Motion.
`
`For the reasons that follow, Petitioner respectfully submits that the pending
`
`Petition be dismissed and the above-identified proceedings should be terminated.
`
`I.
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The petition in this matter was filed on February 3, 2017. On February 23,
`
`2017, the Board issued a notice according the petition a filing date of February 3,
`
`2017. Shortly after the filing of the petition, Petitioner identified a real party-in-
`
`interest that was inadvertently omitted in the petition. Out of an abundance of
`
`caution, and given the impending changes to the Rules of Practice before the
`
`Board in trial proceedings, Petitioners filed another petition for inter partes review
`
`raising the same arguments and presenting the same evidence as that raised in the
`
`instant petition. That petition has been assigned IPR2016-00926. Thus, at this
`
`time, there are two petitions pending before the PTAB challenging the validity
`
`of the ’174 patent and presenting the same arguments and relying on the same
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`Not only is this Motion to Dismiss unopposed, there are a number of other
`
`factors favoring dismissing the pending petition. First, the above-captioned IPR is
`
`in its preliminary phase, a preliminary response has not yet been filed, and the
`
`Board has yet to reach the merits and issue a decision on institution. In similar
`
`circumstances involving IPRs in such an early juncture, the Board has previously
`
`granted motions to dismiss using its authority under at least 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a)
`
`and 42.71(a). See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-
`
`00109, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2016); Celltrion, Inc. v. Cenetech, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`01733, Paper 12 (PTAB. Oct. 6, 2015) (granting unopposed motion to dismiss
`
`petition); Under Armour, Inc. v. Adidas AG, IPR2015-01531, Paper 8 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 21, 2015) (granting unopposed motion to dismiss petition); Samsung
`
`Electronics Co. LTD v. Nvidia Corporation, IPR2015-01270, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec.
`
`9, 2015) (dismissing Petition even over the patent owner’s objection).
`
`Second, dismissal of the Petition in the above-captioned IPR will preserve
`
`the Board’s and the parties’ resources while also epitomizing the Patent Office’s
`
`policy of “secur[ing] the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” to the above-
`
`captioned IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Here, the requested dismissal
`
`would relieve the Board of the substantial time and resources required to consider
`
`the merits, issue an institution decision, and proceed through trial. Moreover, since
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`another petition is pending raising the same arguments and evidence, but
`
`identifying all real parties-in-interest, Petitioner submits that that proceeding will
`
`be simpler since the same patentability challenges will be addressed.
`
`Granting this Motion to Dismiss would relieve the Patent Owner of the need
`
`to prepare duplicative responses and monitor parallel deadlines
`
`in
`
`two
`
`substantively identical proceedings. As such, it would be proper for the Board
`
`to dismiss the pending Petition “at this early juncture[] to promote efficiency
`
`and minimize unnecessary costs.” Samsung, IPR2015-01270, Paper 11 at p. 4.
`
`Lastly, dismissal of the Petition and termination of the above-captioned IPR
`
`is a just and fair resolution. Again, all parties here agree dismissal is appropriate.
`
`Even the public interest will be served since the same patentability challenges will
`
`be addressed in IPR2016-00926. And the parties and the Board will benefit from
`
`preserving resources that would otherwise be expended if this Motion is denied.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`dismiss the above-captioned petition and terminate proceedings on that petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 1, 2017
`
`Respectfully Submitted by:
`
` /Kent J. Cooper/
`
`Kent Cooper
`Reg. No. 37296
`Law Office of Kent J. Cooper
`9407 Scenic Bluff Drive
`Austin, TX 78733
`kent.cooper@kjcooperlaw.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing:
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
`DISMISS PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`was served by electronic mail on this 1st day of March, 2017, upon Counsel for the
`Patent Owner, as follows:
`
`
`Michael J. Fink (mfink@gbpatent.com); and
`Neil F. Greenblum (ngreenblum@gbpatent.com); and
`Arnold Turk (aturk@gbpatent.com)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Kent J. Cooper/
`Kent J. Cooper
`Reg. No. 37296
`Law Office of Kent J. Cooper
`9407 Scenic Bluff Drive
`Austin, TX 78733
`kent.cooper@kjcooperlaw.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
