`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`BLUE SPIKE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 5,745,569
`Issue Date: April 28, 1998
`Title: METHOD FOR STEGA-CIPHER PROTECTION OF COMPUTER CODE
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01061
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569
`Petitioner Kyocera International, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Kyocera”) sought
`
`
`
`
`
`authorization to file this unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Petition in this and
`
`another identified IPR case by directing an email to Mr. Andrew Kellogg on May
`
`3, 2017. Mr. Kellogg responded that this IRP case has not been empaneled but that
`
`our May 3, 2017 request would be presented to the Panel upon its appointment.
`
`Because we are moving before empanelment of the Panel, and to relieve the need
`
`for appointment of any Panel, and the attendant conservation of resources,
`
`Petitioner herewith files its Motion to Dismiss.
`
`Previously, Petitioner met and conferred with Patent Owner Blue Spike,
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Blue Spike”), and Patent Owner has indicated that it
`
`does not oppose this Motion to Dismiss or otherwise object to Petitioner moving to
`
`dismiss the Petition and terminate the above-captioned IPR. Further, the dismissal
`
`will “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” to the above-captioned
`
`IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Petitioner hereby moves for dismissal of the
`
`pending Petition and termination of the above-captioned IPR.
`
`I.
`
`Good Cause Exists To Dismiss The Petition And Terminate The Above-
`Captioned IPR
`
`Not only is this Motion to Dismiss unopposed, but there are a number of
`
`other factors that weigh in favor of dismissing the pending Petition. First, the
`
`above-captioned IPR is in its preliminary phase, no preliminary response was filed,
`
`and the Board has yet to reach the merits and issue a decision on institution. In
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569
`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 resources 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 (if instituted).
`
`Likewise, granting this Motion to Dismiss would relieve the Patent Owner of the
`
`substantial expense in preparing responses, presenting expert testimony, and
`
`participating in an oral hearing. As such, it would be entirely 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569
`Lastly, dismissal of the Petition and termination of the above-captioned IPR
`
`
`
`
`
`is a just and fair resolution. The parties and the Board will benefit from preserving
`
`of the resources that would otherwise be expended if this Motion is denied.
`
`II. Conclusion
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant Petitioner’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Petition and terminate the
`
`above-captioned IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569
`Dated: May 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
` /Nicola A. Pisano/
`Nicola A. Pisano
`Reg. No. 34,408
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Petition was served on May 5, 2017, by filing this
`
`document through the PTAB E2E system as well as delivering a copy via
`
`electronic mail to the following attorneys of record for the patent holder:
`
`Richard A. Neifeld
`Reg. No. 35,299
`Neifeld IP Law, PC
`5400 Shawnee Road
`Suite 310
`Alexandra, Virginia 22312
`Phone: 703.415.0012
`rneifeld@neifeld.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Nicola A. Pisano/
`Nicola A. Pisano
`Reg. No. 34,408
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`