ZTE (USA)v.Vringo Infrastructure Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2015

11071492 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2015)

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