`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: August 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., and WHATSAPP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2018-00747 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`IPR2018-00748 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00747 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`IPR2018-00748 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board held a conference call with the parties on August 10, 2018, to
`discuss the pending petitions and motions for joinder in the captioned cases and the
`impact of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 134 (2018). As a follow-up to that
`conference call, Petitioner’s counsel responded via e-mail dated August 15, 2018,
`that “[i]n view of the Board’s position regarding the SAS decision, Facebook and
`WhatsApp notify the Board that they elect to withdraw their petitions in IPR2018-
`00747 and IPR2018-00748.” Exhibit 3001. We understand Petitioner’s e-mail
`communication as a request for dismissal of the petitions.
`Further, under 37 U.S.C. § 42.71(a), the Board may “grant, deny, or dismiss
`any petition or motion,” or enter any appropriate order. These cases are in the
`preliminary proceeding stage, and dismissing the petitions under § 42.71(a) would
`promote efficiency and conserve resources of the Board. Therefore, the parties are
`ordered to show cause why the Petitions in these proceedings should not be
`dismissed. If either party contends good cause exists for the cases not to be
`dismissed, the parties, jointly, shall request a conference call with the Board, by no
`later than Tuesday, August 28, 2018, to discuss the matter. Otherwise, the Board
`will promptly enter an order dismissing the petitions under § 42.71(a).1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 For guidance the parties are directed to the Decision Dismissing Petition in
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. NVIDIA Corp., Case IPR2015-01270 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2015)
`(Paper 11).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00747 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`IPR2018-00748 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`
`
`
`ORDER
`In light of Petitioner’s election to withdraw the Petition in each of the
`captioned proceedings, the parties are ordered to show cause why the petitions
`should not be dismissed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a).
`FURTHER ORDERED that if either party contends good cause exists, the
`parties, jointly, shall request a conference call with the Board by no later than
`August 28, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00747 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`IPR2018-00748 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Phillip E. Morton
`Lisa Schwier
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`pmorton@cooley.com
`lschwier@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Ryan Loveless
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
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
