`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED AND
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652
`Claims 18-34
`
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-00864
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Introduction and Summary of Argument
`
`Zond LLC (“Zond”) is not opposed to joinder per se. It merely wants a
`
`more global solution to the enormous, unprecedented number of petitions filed
`
`against Zond, which currently total 117 and counting. Zond is clearly under
`
`siege as accused infringers file multiple requests for inter partes review against
`
`every one of its asserted patents. This is not what Congress had in mind when
`
`it created inter partes review. In fact, Congress specifically warned that the new
`
`post grant proceedings were “not to be used as tools for harassment or a
`
`means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative
`
`attacks on validity of a patent.”1 Thus, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §315, Congress
`
`granted the Board the authority to manage such situations through various
`
`procedural powers (e.g., stay, transfer, consolidation or termination), in part to
`
`protect patent owners from harassment and in part for the Board to manage its
`
`own workload.
`
` For the reasons stated below, Zond respectfully submits that any joinder
`
`should only be granted if TSCM, by agreement or by order of the Board, is
`
`
`1 Excerpt from Committee Report 112-98, section “Post-Grant Proceedings,”
`
`attached at page 7.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`barred from filing more petitions against the ‘652 patent: FUJITSU’s proposal
`
`does not come close to solving the current problem, because its reserves for
`
`FUJITSU the option to file additional petitions against the patent at issue,
`
`thereby adding to the problem. Nor does it address the parallel petitions filed
`
`by Gillette, Renesas Electronics Corp. and others against the patent, and the
`
`additional petitions that are expected to arrive shortly. Therefore, FUJITSU’s
`
`petition and proposed joinder create only the illusion of simplification. As
`
`explained below, FUJITSU’s petition and motion serve only FUJITSU’s
`
`objective of procuring an immediate stay of Zond’s infringement action against
`
`FUJITSU.
`
`II. The Motion Does Not Consider Risk of Harassment By Other
`Petitions Contemplated By FUJITSU Against the ‘652 Patent
`
`As explained below, FUJITSU copied Intel’s petition for the sole
`
`purpose of obtaining an immediate stay of Zond’s infringement litigation
`
`against FUJITSU in civil action number 1:13-cv-11634. FUJITSU therefore
`
`insists on reserving the option to file additional petitions in the coming months
`
`against the ‘652 patent with its own arguments and new art.
`
`FUJITSU is a defendant in an infringement suit before Judge Young.
`
`This is not the suit mentioned in FUJITSU’s motion, in which Intel is the
`
`defendant before a different judge. That suit was stayed three months ago in
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`view of Intel’s petitions for inter partes review. In the infringement action
`
`against FUJITSU, Judge Young initially denied FUJITSU’s motion to stay
`
`because FUJITSU had at that time not filed any petition for inter partes review:
`
`“The motion to stay is denied as premature.”2 Judge Young made it quite
`
`clear that if FUJITSU wanted a stay, it would have to file its own petitions:
`
`THE COURT: So the ruling’s the same, it’s denied because it is
`
`premature. Once they notify the court that it’s filed – once it’s filed
`
`then --- as soon as that happens, my stay will go into effect …
`
`MR FITZPATRICK: The IPRs are already pending. Intel has
`
`already filed IPRs.
`
`THE COURT: You’re not Intel.3
`
`Judge Young said that in the meantime, he was prepared to rule on Markman
`
`issues4 and take the case to trial and verdict by December 2014.5
`
`And so the flood of copied petitions began, which led to Judge Young’s
`
`order to stay the litigation. But the present petition was copied just for
`
`
`2 Hearing Transcript, page 11 (attached below)
`
`3 Hearing Transcript, page 14, 17(attached below) .
`
`4 Hearing Transcript, page 6, 18 (attached below).
`
`5 Hearing Transcript, page 10 (attached below).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`purposes of procuring this stay. FUJITSU wants the option to file its own
`
`petitions against the ‘652 with new arguments and art in the coming months.
`
`For this reason, FUJITSU’s proposal to join the Intel proceedings but to keep
`
`open the option of filing even more petitions against Zond, is an abuse of the
`
`IPR proceedings that Congress urged the patent office to address with its
`
`expanded procedural authority:
`
`[T]he changes made … are not to be used as tools for harassment
`
`or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation
`
`and administrative attacks on validity of a patent. Doing so
`
`would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and
`
`cost effective alternatives to litigation…..as such, the committee
`
`intends for the USPTO to address potential abuses and current
`
`inefficiencies under its expanded procedural authority.6
`
`
`
`Accordingly, joinder should only be allowed if FUJITSU is precluded from
`
`filing additional petitions against the same patent, and if any such joinder takes
`
`into consideration the many other petitions that have been filed against the
`
`‘142 patent as explained below.
`
`
`
`
`6 Excerpt from Committee Report 112-98 , section “Post-Grant Proceedings,”
`
`attached at page 7.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`
`III. The Motion Does Not Consider Other Petitions That have Been
`Filed Against the‘142 Patent
`
`The current motion does not address the petitions being filed by Gillette,
`
`Renesas Electronics Corp. and many other parties against the ‘652 patent.
`
`Unless these parties are included in the joinder, little is accomplished. If these
`
`parties are not taken into consideration, Zond will be prejudiced if they refuse
`
`to agree to the same schedule or refuse to streamline briefing and discovery.
`
`Even worse, it appears that more petitions are forthcoming. Thus, the present
`
`motion to join is premature since we have reason to believe that more copied
`
`petitions are forthcoming against the ‘652 patent, and all parties to the copied
`
`petitions have not yet conferred on the terms of joinder.
`
`IV. The Motion Does Not Consider The Complications of Multiple
`Proceedings Against A Single Patent
`
`FUJITSU’s motion also does not address the complications presented by
`
`the pending requests for separate proceedings against different parts of the
`
`same patent, or the fact that the Board has yet to be decided which, if any, of
`
`the proposed grounds will be granted review. As Zond has pointed out in its
`
`responses to date, the records in the pending petitions have evidentiary
`
`shortcomings that Zond believes do not meet the reasonable likelihood
`
`standard required for review. As a result, Zond expects that many of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`proposed grounds will be denied review on these records. Thus, until the
`
`Board decides which, if any claims to review, it is too soon to decide which
`
`grounds to consolidate and which parties to join.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §315, the Board has the authority to manage the
`
`numerous multiple petitions against the ‘652 patent by, for example,
`
`consolidation, termination and joinder, once it is apparent which grounds in
`
`the copied petitions have satisfied the standards for initiation of an inter partes
`
`review. For the reasons stated above, Zond respectfully submits that any
`
`joinder should only be granted if TSCM, by agreement or by order of the
`
`Board, is barred from filing more petitions against the ‘652 patent. Zond
`
`further submits that the proposed joinder is premature since it does not take
`
`into consideration the other Petitions filed against the same patent by other
`
`parties.
`
`Date: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Bruce Barker/
`
`Bruce Barker, Reg. No. 33,291
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Main Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`(508) 366-3800
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`Excerpt From Committee Report 112-98
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Excerpts From Hearing Before Judge Young on May 9, 2014
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Excerpts From Hearing Before Judge Young on May 9, 2014
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`The Court:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`H CH
`
`MR. FITZPATRIcm —
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-00864
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder was served via email on July 16, 2014, on the
`
`attorneys for the Petitioner:
`
`
`
`
`
`David L. McCombs
`David M. O’Dell
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP.
`2323 VICTORY AVENUE SUITE 700
`DALLAS TEXAS 75219
`TELEPHONE: (214) 651-5533
`FAX: (214) 200-0853
`EMAIL: David.McCombs@haynesboone.com
`david.odell@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Bruce Barker/
`Bruce Barker
`Reg. No. 33,291
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Main Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`(508) 366-3800
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`