`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: October 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Revised Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On May 29, 2014, Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited and Fujitsu
`
`Semiconductor America, Inc. (collectively, “Fujitsu”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 15–17, 22–25,
`
`27–30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421 B2 (“the ’421 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Fujitsu also filed a revised Motion for Joinder,
`
`seeking to join the instant proceeding with Taiwan Semiconductor Manuf.
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00800 (PTAB) (“IPR2014-00800”).
`
`Paper 9 (“Mot.”).
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”), the Petitioner in
`
`IPR2014-00800, does not oppose Fujitsu’s revised Motion for Joinder.
`
`Mot. 2, 5–6. Patent Owner, Zond, LLC (“Zond”), filed a Preliminary
`
`Response to the Petition (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”) and an Opposition to
`
`Fujitsu’s revised Motion for Joinder (Paper 10, “Opp.”). In a separate
`
`decision, entered concurrently, we institute an inter partes review as to the
`
`same claims on the same grounds of unpatentability for which we instituted
`
`trial in IPR2014-00800. For the reasons set forth below, Fujitsu’s revised
`
`Motion for Joinder is granted.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`
`284 (2011) (“AIA”) permits joinder of like review proceedings. The Board,
`
`acting on behalf of the Director, has the discretion to join an inter partes
`
`review with another inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder of inter partes review
`
`proceedings is 35 U.S.C § 315(c), which provides:
`
`JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`under section 311
`that
`the Director, after receiving a
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant
`
`joinder is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. When
`
`exercising its discretion, the Board is mindful that patent trial regulations,
`
`including the rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). The Board considers the impact of both substantive
`
`issues and procedural matters on the proceedings.
`
`As the moving party, Fujitsu bears the burden to show that joinder is
`
`appropriate. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). In its revised Motion for
`
`Joinder, Fujitsu contends that joinder, in this particular situation, is
`
`appropriate because: (1) “it is the most expedient way to secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the related proceedings” (Mot. 5);
`
`(2) Fujitsu’s Petition is substantively identical to TSMC’s Petition filed in
`
`IPR2014-00800 (id. at 6); (3) Fujitsu agrees to consolidated filings and
`
`discovery (id. at 6–7); (4) joinder would not affect the schedule in
`
`IPR2014-00800 (id. at 7–8); (5) joinder would streamline the proceedings,
`
`reduce the costs and burdens on the parties, and increase efficiencies for the
`
`Board without any prejudice to Zond (id. at 8).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We agree that the substantive issues in IPR2014-00800 would not be
`
`affected by joinder, because Fujitsu’s Petition is substantively identical to
`
`TSMC’s Petition filed in IPR2014-00800. Notably, Fujitsu’s Petition asserts
`
`identical grounds of unpatentability, challenging the same claims of the ’421
`
`patent. Compare Pet. 14–59, with IPR2014-00800, Paper 1 (“’800 Pet.”),
`
`14–59. Fujitsu also submits identical claim constructions, as well as the
`
`same Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen. Compare Pet. 13–15, with ’800
`
`Pet. 13–15; compare Ex. 1002, with ’800, Ex. 1002. Moreover, we institute
`
`the instant trial based on the same grounds for which we instituted trial in
`
`IPR2014-00800. Therefore, Fujitsu’s Petition raises no new issues beyond
`
`those already before us in IPR2014-00800.
`
`In its Opposition, Zond indicates that it is not opposed to joinder.
`
`Opp. 1. Rather, Zond proposes a procedure for the joined proceeding to
`
`consolidate the schedule, filings, and discovery of ALL joined parties. Opp.
`
`1.
`
`We agree with the parties that conducting a single joined proceeding
`
`for reviewing claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 15–17, 22–25, 27–30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42,
`
`43, and 46–48 of the ’421 patent is more efficient than conducting multiple
`
`proceedings, eliminating duplicate filings and discovery. Fujitsu agrees to
`
`consolidated filings for all substantive papers. Mot. 6–7. Fujitsu indicates
`
`that it will not file any paper with arguments different from those advanced
`
`by the consolidated filings, eliminating duplicate briefing. Id. at 7. Fujitsu
`
`further agrees to consolidated discovery, as each Petitioner proffers the same
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen. Id. Fujitsu indicates that Petitioners
`
`collectively will designate an attorney to conduct the cross-examination of
`
`any witnesses produced by Zond and the redirect of any witnesses produced
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by Petitioners, within the timeframe normally allotted by the rules for one
`
`party. Id. Moreover, joinder will not require any change to the trial
`
`schedule in IPR2014-00800, allowing the trial still to be completed within
`
`one year. Id. at 7–8. Given that Fujitsu’s Petition raises no new issues, and
`
`Petitioners agree to consolidated filings and discovery, the impact of joinder
`
`on IPR2014-00800 will be minimal, and joinder will streamline the
`
`proceedings, reducing the costs and burdens on the parties and the Board.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Fujitsu has met its burden of demonstrating
`
`that joinder of the instant proceeding with IPR2014-00800 is warranted
`
`under the circumstances.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Fujitsu’s Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-00800 is
`
`granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is joined with
`
`IPR2014-00800;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds of unpatentability on which a
`
`trial was instituted in IPR2014-00800 are unchanged;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order for IPR2014-00800
`
`shall govern the joined proceeding; the initial conference call for the joined
`
`proceeding is scheduled on October 29, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. ET;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is instituted,
`
`joined, and terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the
`
`joined proceeding shall be made only in IPR2014-00800;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, throughout IPR2014-00800, Petitioners
`
`(TSMC and Fujitsu) will file papers, except for motions which do not
`
`involve the other parties, as consolidated filings1; TSMC will identify each
`
`such filing as a consolidated filing and will be responsible for completing all
`
`consolidated filings; the page limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 will apply
`
`to all consolidated filings (e.g., a consolidated filing of a reply to a patent
`
`owner response should be 15 pages or less);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Zond will conduct the cross-examination
`
`of witnesses, as well as the redirect examination of any witness it produces,
`
`in the timeframes set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners collectively will designate
`
`attorneys to conduct the cross-examination of any witnesses produced by
`
`Zond and the redirect examination of any witnesses produced by Petitioners,
`
`within the timeframes set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) for one party; no
`
`individual Petitioner will receive any cross-examination or redirect
`
`examination time in addition to the time normally allotted by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.53(c) for one party;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners collectively will designate
`
`attorneys to present at the oral hearing (if requested) as a consolidated
`
`presentation;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2014-00800 shall
`
`be changed to reflect the joinder with the instant proceeding in accordance
`
`with the attached example; and
`
`
`1 The parties are directed to the Board’s website, in particular FAQs C3, D5,
`and G8, for information regarding filings in the Patent Review Processing
`System (PRPS). See http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`
`the file of IPR2014-00800.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00844
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`David McCombs
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`David M. O’Dell
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-008001
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`____________
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00844 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`