`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 42
`Entered: July 21, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2);
`IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2);
`IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2);
`IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`TERMINATION
`Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`Per Curiam.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2);
`IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2);
`IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2);
`IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner
`(“Parties”) filed Joint Motions to Terminate these proceedings due to
`settlement. IPR2017-01797, Paper 37; IPR2017-01798, Paper 37; IPR2017-
`01799, Paper 45; IPR2017-01800, Paper 40; IPR2017-01801, Paper 37;
`IPR2017-01802, Paper 36. In support of these motions, the Parties filed a
`copy of a confidential settlement agreement (IPR2017-01797, Ex. 2007;
`IPR2017-01798, Ex. 2007; IPR2017-01799, Ex. 2010; IPR2017-01800, Ex.
`2012; IPR2017-01801, Ex. 2006; IPR2017-01802, Ex. 2007 (“Settlement
`Agreement”)), as well as joint requests to file the settlement agreement as
`business confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (IPR2017-01797, Paper 38; IPR2017-01798, Paper 38;
`IPR2017-01799, Paper 46; IPR2017-01800, Paper 41; IPR2017-01801,
`Paper 38; IPR2017-01802, Paper 37). For simplicity, we refer below only to
`the filings in IPR2017-01797, which are representative of the filings in all of
`the proceedings.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under
`this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint
`request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided
`the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.”
`Section 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) also provides that if no petitioner remains in the
`inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review. Section 317(b)
`requires that any agreement between the parties, including collateral
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2);
`IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2);
`IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2);
`IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`agreements, made in connection with the termination of an inter partes
`review “shall be in writing and a true copy of such agreement or
`understanding shall be filed in the Office before the termination of the inter
`partes review as between the parties.”
`The Parties represent that they have reached an agreement to seek
`termination of these inter partes review proceedings jointly. E.g., IPR2017-
`01797 Joint Motion 2. “There are no other agreements, oral or written,
`between the parties made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the
`termination of this proceeding,” and the filed copy of the Settlement
`Agreement is a true and correct copy. E.g., id. at 3–5. The Parties further
`represent that the Settlement Agreement resolves all currently pending
`Patent Office and District Court proceedings between the Parties involving
`the patents at issue. E.g., id. at 4.
`We instituted trials on the above-identified proceedings. Although we
`decided the merits of the proceedings and entered final written decisions, the
`Federal Circuit vacated those final written decisions. Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Nos. 19-2165, -2166, -2167, -2168, -2169 (Fed.
`Cir. Feb. 27, 2020) (order granting motion to vacate and remand).
`Notwithstanding that the proceedings have moved beyond the preliminary
`stages, the Parties have shown adequately that the termination of the
`proceedings is appropriate. Under these circumstances, we determine that
`good cause exists to terminate the proceedings. We further determine that
`the Settlement Agreement complies with the requirements for written
`agreements regarding termination set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2);
`IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2);
`IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2);
`IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`The Parties also filed Joint Requests that the Settlement Agreement be
`treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the
`file of the respective patents involved in this inter partes proceeding. E.g.,
`IPR2017-01797 Joint Request. After reviewing the Settlement Agreement
`between Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find that the Settlement Agreement
`contains confidential business information regarding the terms of settlement.
`We determine that good cause exists to treat the Settlement Agreement
`between Petitioner and Patent Owner as business confidential information
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`This Order does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`III. ORDER
`Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is
`ORDERED that, for each proceeding, the Joint Motion to Terminate
`is granted, and IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799, IPR2017-
`01800, IPR2017-01801, and IPR2017-01802 are terminated pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, for each proceeding, the Joint Request to
`Treat the Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information is
`granted, and the Settlement Agreement shall be kept separate from the files
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,724,622 B2; 8,199,747 B2; 8,243,723 B2; 8,995,433
`B2; and 7,535,890 B2, and made available only to Federal Government
`agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2);
`IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2);
`IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2);
`IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2);
`IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip W. Citroen
`Michael Wolfe
`PAUL HASTINGS
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`michaelwolfe@paulhastings.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Ryan Loveless
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`