ZTE (USA)v.Vringo Infrastructure Inc.Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 11, 201508659590 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2015) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571-272-7822 Entered: June 11, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ ZTE (USA), Petitioner, v. VRINGO INFRASTRUCTURE INC., Patent Owner. ____________ Cases IPR2015-00701 (Patent 7,724,720) IPR2015-00703 (Patent 7,126,940) IPR2015-00704 (Patent 6,081,534) IPR2015-00705 (Patent 7,558,283) IPR2015-00706 (Patent 5,689,252)1 ____________ Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Motion to Dismiss 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a) 1 This Decision addresses issues pertaining to all five cases. Thus, we exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each case. The parties are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers. IPR2015-00701, IPR2015-00703, IPR2015-00704, IPR2015-00705, IPR2015-00706 2 In each of the instant proceedings, Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2015. Paper 11.2 The Board authorized the filing of these Motions in an Order mailed June 2, 2015. Paper 10.3 Petitioner requests, in each proceeding, dismissal of the pending petition and termination of the proceeding. Paper 11, 2. Petitioner requests such dismissal and termination as a result of our decision to expunge previously filed Corrected Petitions that were not properly filed. Id. at 2–3; see also Paper 10, 3 (noting Petitioner’s desire, expressed during a May 21, 2015 conference call with the parties, to file new petitions if the Corrected Petitions were not entered). Each of these proceedings is still in a preliminary stage. Patent Owner has not filed a preliminary response, and we have not considered the merits of the Petitions. Furthermore, Patent Owner indicated during the May 21, 2015 conference call that it would not object to Petitioner moving to terminate the instant proceedings. Paper 10, 3. Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to dismiss the petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71(a). This paper does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss in each of the instant proceedings is granted; 2 The paper number for the Motion to Dismiss is the same in all five proceedings. 3 The paper number for the Order is the same in all five proceedings. IPR2015-00701, IPR2015-00703, IPR2015-00704, IPR2015-00705, IPR2015-00706 3 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in each of the instant proceedings is dismissed; and FURTHER ORDERED that each of the instant proceedings is terminated. IPR2015-00701, IPR2015-00703, IPR2015-00704, IPR2015-00705, IPR2015-00706 4 PETITIONER: Steve A. Moore Richard W. Thill PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com richard.thill@pillsburylaw.com PATENT OWNER: Ian R. Blum Brandon N. Sklar COZWN O’CONNOR iblum@cozen.com bsklar@cozen.com Tarek N. Fahmi Amy J. Embert ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com amy.embert@ascendalaw.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation