`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`Entered: September 10, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00642 (Patent 8,307,180 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00643 (Patent RE45,486 E)
`Case IPR2019-00645 (Patent 9,367,486 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00648 (Patent 9,063,850 B2)
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, J. JOHN LEE, and JASON M. REPKO,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, J. JOHN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`TERMINATION
`Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial
`35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00642 (Patent 8,307,180 B2)
`IPR2019-00643 (Patent RE45,486 E)
`IPR2019-00645 (Patent 9,367,486 B2)
`IPR2019-00648 (Patent 9,063,850 B2)
`
`
`On September 6, 2019, Petitioner Kingston Technology Company,
`Inc., and Patent Owner Memory Technologies, LLC, filed a Joint Motion to
`Terminate (e.g., Paper 12*) and a Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement
`as Business Confidential Information (e.g., Paper 13) in each of the above-
`captioned proceedings. The parties represent that they have reached a
`Settlement Agreement, which is in writing and a true copy of which has
`been filed in conjunction with the above motions as required under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). Paper 12, 1; Ex. 1026. The parties also certify that no
`other agreements exist between the parties concerning these cases or the
`patents at issue. Paper 9, 1.
`“An 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.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(a). We have not decided the merits of any of the above-captioned
`proceedings and, thus, these proceedings must be terminated with respect to
`Petitioner. Although the Board retains the authority to continue the
`proceeding without a petitioner (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a)), we determine
`that termination of these proceedings in their entirety is appropriate here.
`Thus, we grant the Joint Motions to Terminate in each proceeding. We
`further determine that the Settlement Agreement filed by the parties
`constitutes business confidential information. Therefore, the parties’ Joint
`
`
`* All citations herein are to IPR2019-00642. Similar filings were made in all
`of the above-captioned cases.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00642 (Patent 8,307,180 B2)
`IPR2019-00643 (Patent RE45,486 E)
`IPR2019-00645 (Patent 9,367,486 B2)
`IPR2019-00648 (Patent 9,063,850 B2)
`
`Motions to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information
`are granted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b) in each proceeding.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Joint Motions to Terminate are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motions to File
`Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information are granted;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1026 of IPR2019-000642,
`Exhibit 1016 of IPR2019-000643, Exhibit 1026 of IPR2019-000645, and
`Exhibit 1021 of IPR2019-000648, shall be kept separate from the pertinent
`files consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00642 (Patent 8,307,180 B2)
`IPR2019-00643 (Patent RE45,486 E)
`IPR2019-00645 (Patent 9,367,486 B2)
`IPR2019-00648 (Patent 9,063,850 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Robert C.F. Perez
`Christopher Kao
`Brock Weber
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`robert.perez@pillsburylaw.com
`christopher.kao@pillsburylaw.com
`brock.weber@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`James Stein
`Andrew Strickland
`William Dyer, III
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`james.stein@leehayes.com
`andrew.strickland@leehayes.com
`bill.dyer@leehayes.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
