`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WISTARIA TRADING LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 8,930,719
`Issue Date: January 6, 2015
`Title: DATA PROTECTION METHOD AND DEVICE
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01109
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01109
`U.S. Patent No. 8,930,719
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Wistaria
`
`Trading Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or “Wistaria”), 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 IPR2017-01109
`U.S. Patent No. 8,930,719
`
`
`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 IPR2017-01109
`U.S. Patent No. 8,930,719
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-01109
`U.S. Patent No. 8,930,719
`
`Dated: May 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Nicola A. Pisano/
`Nicola A. Pisano
`Reg. No. 34,408
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01109
`U.S. Patent No. 8,930,719
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
