Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: March 18, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, FUJITSU
`SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioners,
`v.
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-007811
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`____________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to Petitioner TSMC
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses similar issues in the inter partes reviews identified
`in the Appendix of this Decision. For efficiency, we enter this Decision in
`this case as representative.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: March 18, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, FUJITSU
`SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioners,
`v.
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-007811
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`____________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Joint Motion to Terminate as to Petitioner TSMC
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses similar issues in the inter partes reviews identified
`in the Appendix of this Decision. For efficiency, we enter this Decision in
`this case as representative.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`We instituted an inter partes review in each of the proceedings
`
`identified in the Appendix of this Decision, challenging U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,805,779 B2, 6,806,652 B1, 6,853,142 B2, 6,896,773 B2, 6,896,775 B2,
`
`7,147,759 B2, 7,604,716 B2, 7,808,184 B2, and 7,811,421 B2. Paper 13.2
`
`After institution, we also granted the revised Motions for Joinder filed by
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, LTD., TSMC North
`
`America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”), Fujitsu Semiconductor
`
`Limited and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. (collectively, “Fujitsu”),
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”), Renesas Electronics Corporation,
`
`Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Renesas”),
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`One LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC &
`
`Co. KG (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”), Toshiba America Electronic
`
`Components, Inc., Toshiba America Inc., Toshiba America Information
`
`Systems, Inc., and Toshiba Corporation (collectively, “Toshiba”), and The
`
`Gillette Company (“Gillette”). See, e.g., Papers 16, 17, 18. A list of these
`
`Joinder Cases is provided in the Appendix of the instant Decision.
`
`On March 11, 2015, Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) and TSMC
`
`filed a Joint Motion to Terminate, with respect to TSMC, in each pending
`
`inter partes review listed in the Appendix. Paper 33, “Mot.” They also filed
`
`a true copy of their Written Settlement Agreement, made in connection with
`
`the termination as to TSMC, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.74(b). Ex. 1238. They further request that the Written Settlement
`
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2014-00781, as representative, unless otherwise
`noted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`Agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 34. For the reasons set forth
`
`below, the Joint Motions to Terminate, with respect to TSMC, and the Joint
`
`Requests are granted.
`
`Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, settlement between the
`
`parties to a proceeding is encouraged. Notably, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), in part,
`
`provides the following (emphasis added):
`
`(a) IN GENERAL.—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. If the inter partes review is
`terminated with respect to a petitioner under this section, no
`estoppel under section 315(e) shall attach to the petitioner, or
`to the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, on the
`basis of that petitioner’s institution of that inter partes review.
`
`Here, although the instant inter partes reviews have been instituted,
`
`we have not entered a final written decision in any of the proceedings. Upon
`
`review of the procedural posture of these proceedings and the facts before
`
`us, we determine that the parties’ contentions have merit.
`
`In their Joint Motions to Terminate, Zond and TSMC indicate that
`
`they have settled all of their disputes involving the aforementioned patents.
`
`Mot. 2. In particular, they have agreed to settle and dismiss their related
`
`district court litigations, with prejudice, concerning these patents. Mot. 7;
`
`Ex. 1237. More importantly, the termination of each review at issue, with
`
`respect to TSMC, will not result in the termination of the review, as
`
`additional Petitioners remain.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`Because TSMC was designated as Lead Petitioner for seventeen
`
`joined proceedings (see, e.g., Paper 18, 6), we requested, in our prior Order
`
`authorizing the filing of the Joint Motions to Terminate, that the parties to
`
`designate a new lead petitioner for these proceedings and to identify any
`
`impact on the new lead petitioner’s ability to file substantive papers,
`
`scheduling changes, and consolidation of oral hearings. Paper 32, 3. In
`
`response, the remaining Petitioners working together with Zond and TSMC
`
`reached an agreement regarding these issues.
`
`Pursuant to our prior Order, the parties filed, on March 16, 2015, a
`
`Motion to Designate Lead Petitioners and to Amend Scheduling Order in
`
`each proceeding. Paper 35. The Motion provides a list of Lead and Backup
`
`petitioners (reproduced in the Appendix of this Decision). Id. at 3–4. The
`
`parties also stipulate to different dates for Due Dates 2–5 in certain
`
`proceedings, and propose to consolidate the oral hearings for the earlier
`
`proceedings with those for the later proceedings, changing Due Dates 6–7
`
`for the earlier proceedings. Id. at 4–6. The parties believe that the proposal
`
`would allow the remaining Petitioners sufficient time to accommodate
`
`TSMC’s termination while timely meeting the deadlines. Id. at 4. We also
`
`observe that the parties’ proposal would not impact the trial schedules for
`
`these proceedings significantly, nor our ability to complete the proceedings
`
`timely. In a separate decision, we will grant the parties’ Motions to
`
`Designate Lead Petitioner and to Amend Scheduling Order.
`
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate as to the
`
`parties upon settlement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Given the facts before us, we
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`determine that it is appropriate to terminate these proceedings with respect
`
`TSMC. The proceedings, however, will not be terminated with respect to
`
`Zond, as additional Petitioners remain in the proceedings.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Terminate, with respect to
`
`TSMC, filed in each pending review identified in the Appendix is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that these reviews are terminated with respect
`
`to TSMC only; but these reviews continue to proceed with Zond and the
`
`remaining Petitioners—namely Fujitsu, AMD, Renesas, GlobalFoundries,
`
`Toshiba, and Gillette;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Requests that the Written
`
`Settlement Agreement be treated as business confidential information kept
`
`separate from the patent file, and made available only to Federal
`
`Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of
`
`good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), are
`
`granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that any subsequent papers filed in these inter
`
`partes reviews should not include TSMC in the caption.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No.
`
`Pending
`Reviews
`
`IPR2014-00828
`
`6,805,779
`
`IPR2014-00829
`
`IPR2014-00917
`
`6,806,652
`
`IPR2014-00861
`
`6,853,142
`
`IPR2014-00818
`
`IPR2014-00819
`
`IPR2014-00821
`
`IPR2014-00827
`
`APPENDIX
`
`Joinder Cases
`
`IPR2014-00856
`IPR2014-01070
`IPR2014-01022
`
`IPR2014-00859
`IPR2014-01072
`IPR2014-01020
`
`IPR2014-00918
`IPR2014-01074
`IPR2014-01025
`
`IPR2014-00864
`IPR2014-01003
`IPR2014-01066
`
`IPR2014-00866
`IPR2014-01012
`IPR2014-01075
`IPR2014-00867
`IPR2014-01014
`IPR2014-01046
`IPR2014-00863
`IPR2014-01013
`IPR2014-01057
`IPR2014-00865
`IPR2014-01015
`IPR2014-01063
`
`Lead
`Petitioners
`
`Backup
`Petitioners
`
`Global
`Foundries
`
`Gillette
`
`Global
`Foundries
`
`Gillette
`
`Global
`Foundries
`
`Gillette
`
`IPR2014-00580
`
`IPR2014-01479
`
`6,896,773
`
`Gillette
`
`Fujitsu
`
`IPR2014-00726
`
`IPR2014-01481
`
`IPR2014-00578
`
`IPR2014-01494
`
`6,896,775
`
`Gillette
`
`Fujitsu
`
`IPR2014-00604
`
`IPR2014-01482
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`Patent No.
`
`Pending
`Reviews
`
`7,147,759
`
`7,604,716
`
`7,808,184
`
`IPR2014-00781
`
`IPR2014-00782
`
`IPR2014-00807
`
`IPR2014-00808
`
`IPR2014-00799
`
`IPR2014-00803
`
`IPR2014-00800
`
`7,811,421
`
`IPR2014-00802
`
`IPR2014-00805
`
`Lead
`Petitioners
`
`Backup
`Petitioners
`
`Renesas
`
`Global
`Foundries
`
`AMD
`
`Global
`Foundries
`
`Gillette
`
`Global
`Foundries
`
`Global
`Foundries
`
`Gillette
`
`Joinder Cases
`
`IPR2014-00845
`IPR2014-00985
`IPR2014-01047
`
`IPR2014-00850
`IPR2014-00986
`IPR2014-01059
`
`IPR2014-00846
`IPR2014-01065
`IPR2014-00974
`
`IPR2014-00849
`IPR2014-01067
`IPR2014-00975
`
`IPR2014-00855
`IPR2014-00955
`IPR2014-01042
`
`IPR2014-00858
`IPR2014-00996
`IPR2014-01061
`
`IPR2014-00844
`IPR2014-00991
`IPR2014-01037
`
`IPR2014-00848
`IPR2014-00992
`IPR2014-01071
`
`IPR2014-00851
`IPR2014-00990
`IPR2014-01069
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`
`TSMC and Fujitsu:
`
`David L. McCombs
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`David M O’Dell
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Richard C. Kim
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`
`GlobalFoundries:
`
`David Tennant
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`Dohm Chankong
`dohm.chankong@whitecase.com
`
`
`Gillette:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Larissa B. Park
`larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`AMD:
`
`Brian M. Berliner
`bberliner@omm.com
`
`Ryan K. Yagura
`ryagura@omm.com
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`
`
`Toshiba:
`
`Robinson Vu
`Robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`Renesas:
`
`John J. Feldhaus
`jfeldhaus@foley.com
`
`Pavan Agarwal
`pagarwal@foley.com
`
`Mike Houston
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
