Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 10
`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
`IPR2019-00321 (Patent 8,271,812 B2)
`IPR2019-00322 (Patent 8,443,216 B2)
` IPR2019-00325 (Patent 8,656,196 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, 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.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00321 (Patent 8,271,812 B2)
`IPR2019-00322 (Patent 8,443,216 B2)
`IPR2019-00325 (Patent 8,656,196 B2)
`
`
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`The parties filed the following in each proceeding identified above: (1) a
`Joint Motion to Dismiss Proceeding (Case IPR2019-00321, Paper 7; Case
`IPR2019-00322, Paper 7; Case IPR2019-00325, Paper 8); (2) a true copy of the
`parties’ settlement agreement (Case IPR2019-00321, Paper 8; Case IPR2019-
`00322, Paper 8; Case IPR2019-00325, Paper 9)2; 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-
`00321, Paper 9; Case IPR2019-00322, Paper 9; Case IPR2019-00325, Paper 10).
`These proceedings are still in their preliminary stages. Petitioner,
`Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Qualcomm”),
`filed (1) a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 8 and 9 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,271,812 B2 (“the ’812 patent”), (2) a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,443,216 B2
`(“the ’216 patent”), and (3) a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–3, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,656,196 B2 (“the ’196 patent”). Case
`IPR2019-00321, Paper 1; Case IPR2019-00322, Paper 1; Case IPR2019-00325,
`Paper 1. Patent Owner, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), filed a Preliminary Response to each
`Petition. Case IPR2019-00321, Paper 6; Case IPR2019-00322, Paper 6; Case
`IPR2019-00325, Paper 7. 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
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00321 (Patent 8,271,812 B2)
`IPR2019-00322 (Patent 8,443,216 B2)
`IPR2019-00325 (Patent 8,656,196 B2)
`
`
`In the Joint Motions to Dismiss Proceeding, the parties indicate that they
`have settled all their disputes regarding the ’812 patent, the ’216 patent, and
`the ’196 patent, and they have agreed to dismiss each of the aforementioned
`Petitions. Case IPR2019-00321, Paper 7, 1; Case IPR2019-00322, Paper 7, 1;
`Case IPR2019-00325, Paper 8, 1. The parties represent that the settlement
`encompasses, among other things, these three proceedings and the related district
`court case where Qualcomm asserted the ’812 patent, the ’216 patent, and the ’196
`patent against Apple. Case IPR2019-00321, Paper 7, 3–4; Case IPR2019-00322,
`Paper 7, 3–4; Case IPR2019-00325, Paper 8, 3–4. In each case, the parties also
`state that “[t]here are no other pending litigations or any other proceedings
`between [Qualcomm] and [Apple] relating to” the patents at issue in each case.
`Case IPR2019-00321, Paper 7, 4; Case IPR2019-00322, Paper 7, 4; Case IPR2019-
`00325, Paper 8, 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
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00321 (Patent 8,271,812 B2)
`IPR2019-00322 (Patent 8,443,216 B2)
`IPR2019-00325 (Patent 8,656,196 B2)
`
`
`
`II. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the parties’ requests to treat the true copy of their settlement
`agreement filed in each proceeding (Case IPR2019-00321, Paper 8; Case IPR2019-
`00322, Paper 8; Case IPR2019-00325, 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 IPR2019-00321, Case
`IPR2019-00322, and Case IPR2019-00325 are dismissed resulting in termination
`of these proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00321 (Patent 8,271,812 B2)
`IPR2019-00322 (Patent 8,443,216 B2)
`IPR2019-00325 (Patent 8,656,196 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
`
`