`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: May 10, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALCOMM INC. and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases
`IPR2019-00270 (Patent 8,098,534 B2)
`IPR2019-00274 (Patent 7,760,559 B2)
` IPR2019-00276 (Patent 7,355,905 B2)1
`
`____________
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting the Parties’ Joint Motions to Dismiss Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(a) and 42.74
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue that is identical in all three cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each case.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00270 (Patent 8,098,534 B2)
`IPR2019-00274 (Patent 7,760,559 B2)
`IPR2019-00276 (Patent 7,355,905 B2)
`
`
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`
`The parties filed the following in each proceeding identified above: (1) a
`
`Joint Motion to Dismiss Proceeding (Case IPR2019-00270, Paper 7; Case
`
`IPR2019-00274, Paper 7; Case IPR2019-00276, Paper 7); (2) a true copy of the
`
`parties’ settlement agreement (Case IPR2019-00270, Paper 8; Case IPR2019-
`
`00274, Paper 8; Case IPR2019-00276, Paper 82); and (3) a joint request to treat the
`
`settlement agreement as business confidential information, and to keep separate
`
`from the file of the involved patent, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (Case IPR2019-
`
`00270, Paper 9; Case IPR2019-00274, Paper 9; Case IPR2019-00276, Paper 9).
`
`These proceedings are still in their preliminary stages. Petitioner,
`
`Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Qualcomm”),
`
`filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,098,534 B2 (“the ’534 patent”), a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,760,559 B2 (“the ’559 patent”), and a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4 and 13 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,355,905 B2 (“the ’905 patent”). Case IPR2019-00270, Paper 1; Case IPR2019-
`
`00274, Paper 1; Case IPR2019-00276, Paper 1. Patent Owner, Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”), filed a Preliminary Response to each Petition. Case IPR2019-00270,
`
`Paper 6; Case IPR2019-00274, Paper 6; Case IPR2019-00276, Paper 6. In each
`
`proceeding, however, we have not entered a decision whether to institute an inter
`
`partes review.
`
`
`2 In each case, the parties filed the true copy of their settlement agreement as a
`paper, rather than as a separate exhibit. The parties should have filed the true copy
`of their settlement agreement as a separate exhibit in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.63(a) (“Evidence consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents,
`and things. All evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00270 (Patent 8,098,534 B2)
`IPR2019-00274 (Patent 7,760,559 B2)
`IPR2019-00276 (Patent 7,355,905 B2)
`
`
`In the Joint Motions to Dismiss Proceeding, the parties indicate that they
`
`have settled all their disputes regarding the ’534 patent, the ’559 patent, and the
`
`’905 patent, and they have agreed to dismiss each of the aforementioned Petitions.
`
`Case IPR2019-00270, Paper 7, 1; Case IPR2019-00274, Paper 7, 1; Case IPR2019-
`
`00276, Paper 7, 1. The parties represent that the settlement encompasses, among
`
`other things, these three proceedings and the related district court case where
`
`Qualcomm asserted the ’534 patent, the ’559 patent, and the ’905 patent against
`
`Apple. Case IPR2019-00270, Paper 7, 3–4; Case IPR2019-00274, Paper 7, 3–4;
`
`Case IPR2019-00276, Paper 7, 3–4. The parties also state that “[t]here are no other
`
`pending litigations or any other proceedings between [Qualcomm] and [Apple]
`
`relating to the ’534 patent”, “the ’559 patent,” or “the ’905 patent.” Case
`
`IPR2019-00270, Paper 7, 4; Case IPR2019-00274, Paper 7, 4; Case IPR2019-
`
`00276, Paper 7, 4. Under these particular circumstances, we determine that it is
`
`appropriate to dismiss all three Petitions without rendering any further decisions,
`
`thereby terminating these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a). We also have
`
`reviewed the true copy of the parties’ settlement agreement, and we determine that
`
`good cause exists to treat this settlement agreement as business confidential
`
`information, and keep it separate from the file of the involved patent, under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00270 (Patent 8,098,534 B2)
`IPR2019-00274 (Patent 7,760,559 B2)
`IPR2019-00276 (Patent 7,355,905 B2)
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`II. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the parties’ requests to treat the true copy of their settlement
`
`agreement filed in each proceeding (Case IPR2019-00270, Paper 9; Case IPR2019-
`
`00274, Paper 9; Case IPR2019-00276, Paper 9) as business confidential
`
`information, and to keep separate from the file of the involved patent, under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.74(c) are granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motions to Dismiss
`
`Proceeding are granted, and the Petitions filed in Case IPR2019-00270, Case IPR
`
`2019-00274, and Case IPR2019-00276 are dismissed resulting in termination of
`
`these proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00270 (Patent 8,098,534 B2)
`IPR2019-00274 (Patent 7,760,559 B2)
`IPR2019-00276 (Patent 7,355,905 B2)
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John A. Marlott
`John M. Michalik
`Thomas W. Ritchie
`Matthew W. Johnson
`Jones Day
`jamarlott@jonesday.com
`jmichalik@jonesday.com
`twritchie@jonesday.com
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto J. Devoto
`Thomas A Rozylowicz
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`IPR39521-0066IP1@fr.com
`IPR39521-0067IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`rozylowicz@fr.com
`riffe@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`