`
`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
`
`Case IPR2014-00867
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,853,142
`CLAIMS 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37, 38
`Title: Methods and apparatus for generating high-density plasma
`____________________________________________
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REVISED MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 AND § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.,
`
`(collectively “Fujitsu”) submit the present revised Motion for Joinder pursuant to
`
`the Order of September 16, 2014, (Paper 12) in IPR2014-00781 and (Paper 10) in
`
`IPR2014-00845, authorizing the filing of a revised Motion for Joinder. Fujitsu
`
`further submits that the present revised Motion for Joinder is timely filed within
`
`five business days from the date of the Order.
`
`Fujitsu hereby moves for joinder of the present petition for inter partes
`
`review IPR2014-00867 (the “FUJITSU IPR”) with IPR2014-00819, filed by
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, LTD, and TSMC North America
`
`Corp. (the “TSMC IPR”).1 The FUJITSU IPR is identical to the TSMC IPR in all
`
`substantive respects, includes identical exhibits to the TSMC IPR, and relies upon
`
`the same expert declarant as the TSMC IPR. TSMC does not oppose this motion.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The FUJITSU IPR and the TSMC IPR are among a family of inter partes
`
`review proceedings relating to seven patents2 that are being asserted by Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”) against numerous defendants
`
`in the District of Massachusetts:
`
`1 “TSMC” as used herein refers to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
`Limited and TSMC North America Corp., collectively.
`
`2 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,805,779; 6,806,652; 6,853,142; 7,147,759; 7,604,716;
`7,808,184; and 7,811,421.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond
`
`v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec.
`
`Corp.);
`
`1:13-cv-11634-WGY
`
`(Zond
`
`v.
`
`Fujitsu
`
`and
`
`TSMC);
`
`and
`
`1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.).
`
`In particular, a complaint in 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu and
`
`TSMC) was first served on defendants Fujitsu and TSMC on July 9, 2013, and
`
`September 5, 2013, respectively. Accordingly, all petitions for inter partes review
`
`that have been filed by defendants TSMC and Fujitsu are timely as prescribed by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`On June 2, 2014, as clarified on June 3, 2014, in 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond
`
`v. Fujitsu and TSMC), the Court entered an order to administratively close the case
`
`pending conclusion of inter partes reviews or until May 9, 2016, whichever shall
`
`occur first.
`
`Currently, the family of inter partes review proceedings relating to the seven
`
`Zond patents (the “Zond IPRs”) consists of the following proceedings that involve
`
`TSMC and Fujitsu:3
`
`3 Gillette Co. filed petitions for inter partes review of other patents asserted by
`Zond in 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.), namely IPR2014-00477 and
`IPR2014-00479 (U.S. Patent No. 8,125,155); IPR2014-00580 and IPR2014-00726
`(U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773); and IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604 (U.S. Patent
`No. 6,896,775). Other Gillette filings are ongoing.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`In addition to the present Motion for Joinder, Fujitsu is presently filing
`
`Motions for Joinder of other Zond IPR petitions with the corresponding petitions
`
`filed by TSMC, subject to the same conditions sought by this motion. TSMC does
`
`not oppose the Fujitsu motions.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, Fujitsu respectfully requests
`
`that the Board exercise its discretion to grant joinder of the FUJITSU IPR and
`
`TSMC IPR proceedings pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`In support of this motion, Fujitsu proposes consolidated
`
`filings and other procedural accommodations designed to streamline the
`
`proceedings.
`
`1. Reasons Why Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`Joinder is appropriate in this case because it is the most expedient way to
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the related proceedings. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`Intentionally, the FUJITSU IPR is
`
`substantively identical to the corresponding TSMC IPR in an effort to avoid
`
`multiplication of issues before the Board. Given the duplicative nature of these
`
`petitions, joinder of the related proceedings is appropriate. As discussed below,
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`Fujitsu will agree to consolidated filings and discovery, and procedural
`
`concessions, which TSMC does not oppose and which do not prejudice Zond.
`
`a. Substantively Identical Petitions
`
`Fujitsu represents that the FUJITSU IPR is identical to the TSMC IPR in all
`
`substantive respects. It includes identical grounds, analysis, and exhibits and relies
`
`upon the same expert declarant and declaration as the TSMC IPR. Accordingly, if
`
`instituted, maintaining the FUJITSU IPR proceeding separate from that of the
`
`TSMC IPR would entail needless duplication of effort.
`
`b. Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`Because the grounds of unpatentability in the FUJITSU IPR and TSMC IPR
`
`are the same, the case is amenable to consolidated filings. Fujitsu will agree to
`
`consolidated filings for all substantive papers in the proceeding (e.g., Reply to the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Opposition to Motion to Amend, Motion for
`
`Observation on Cross Examination Testimony of a Reply Witness, Motion to
`
`Exclude Evidence, Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence and Reply).
`
`Specifically, Fujitsu will agree to incorporate its filings with those of TSMC in a
`
`consolidated filing, subject to the ordinary rules for one party on page limits.
`
`TSMC and Fujitsu will be jointly responsible for the consolidated filings.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`Fujitsu agrees not
`
`to be permitted any arguments separate from those
`
`advanced by Fujitsu and TSMC in the consolidated filings. These limitations
`
`avoid lengthy and duplicative briefing.
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Fujitsu and TSMC are
`
`using the same expert declarant who has submitted the same, identical declaration
`
`in the two proceedings. Fujitsu and TSMC will designate an attorney to conduct
`
`the cross-examination of any given witness produced by Zond and the redirect of
`
`any given witness produced by Fujitsu or TSMC within the time frame normally
`
`allotted by the rules for one party. Fujitsu and TSMC will not receive any separate
`
`cross-examination or redirect time.
`
`Fujitsu will agree to the foregoing conditions regarding consolidated filings
`
`and discovery even in the event other IPRs filed by other, third-party petitioners
`
`are joined with the TSMC IPR.
`
`c. No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The FUJITSU IPR raises no new grounds of unpatentability from those of
`
`the TSMC IPR because, in fact, the petitions are identical.
`
`d. No Impact on IPR Trial Schedule
`
`The small difference between the filing date of the FUJITSU IPR and the
`
`TSMC IPR is without consequence should the proceedings be joined. The trial
`
`schedule for the TSMC IPR would not need to be delayed to effect joinder based
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`on Zond’s preliminary response and the later-filed FUJITSU IPR. The joint
`
`proceeding would allow the Board and parties to focus on the merits in one
`
`consolidated proceeding without unnecessary duplication of effort, and in a timely
`
`manner.
`
`e. Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`
`Joinder will simplify briefing and discovery because Fujitsu seeks an order
`
`similar to that issued in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00256
`
`(PTAB June 20, 2013) (Paper 10). As discussed above, Fujitsu and TSMC will
`
`engage in consolidated filings and discovery, which will simplify the briefing and
`
`discovery process.
`
`f. No Prejudice to Zond if Proceedings Are Joined
`
`Fujitsu proposes joinder to streamline the proceedings and reduce the costs
`
`and burdens on the parties. Fujitsu believes joinder will achieve these goals for
`
`several reasons. First, joinder will most certainly decrease the number of papers
`
`the parties must file, by eliminating a duplicative proceeding. Second, joinder will
`
`also reduce by half the time and expense for depositions and other discovery
`
`required in separate proceedings.
`
`Third,
`
`joinder creates case management
`
`efficiencies for the Board and parties without any prejudice to Zond.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER
`
`Petitioner proposes a joinder order for consideration by the Board as
`
`follows, which TSMC does not oppose:
`
` If review is instituted on any ground in the TSMC IPR, the FUJITSU
`
`IPR will be instituted and will be joined with the TSMC IPR on the
`
`same grounds. Grounds not instituted because the TSMC IPR failed
`
`to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing,
`
`if any, will be
`
`similarly denied in the FUJITSU IPR.
`
` The scheduling order for the TSMC IPR will apply for the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
` Throughout the proceeding, TSMC and Fujitsu will file papers as
`
`consolidated filings, except for motions that do not involve the other
`
`party, in accordance with the Board’s established rules regarding page
`
`limits. So long as they both continue to participate in the merged
`
`proceeding, TSMC and Fujitsu will identify each such filing as a
`
`Consolidated Filing and will be responsible for completing all
`
`consolidated filings.
`
` TSMC and Fujitsu will designate an attorney to conduct the cross
`
`examination of any given witness produced by Zond and the redirect
`
`of any given witness produced by TSMC or Fujitsu within the time
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`frame normally allotted by the rules for one party. TSMC and Fujitsu
`
`will not receive any separate cross-examination or redirect time.
`
` Zond will conduct any cross examination of any given witness jointly
`
`produced by TSMC or Fujitsu and the redirect of any given witness
`
`produced by Zond within the time frame normally allotted by the rules
`
`for one cross-examination or redirect examination.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, if the Director institutes inter partes review,
`
`Fujitsu respectfully requests that the Board grant joinder of the FUJITSU IPR and
`
`TSMC IPR proceedings.
`
`Date: September 22, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David M. O’Dell/
`David M. O’Dell
`Registration No. 42,044
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP.
`2323 VICTORY AVENUE SUITE 700
`DALLAS TEXAS 75219
`TEL: (972) 739-8635
`FAX: (214) 200-0853
`EMAIL: david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-00867)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that I
`caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing “PETITIONER’S
`REVISED MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)” as detailed below:
`
`Date of service September 22, 2014
`
`Manner of service Email: gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com;
`bbarker@chsblaw.com; kurt@rauschenbach.com
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S REVISED MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND
`42.122(b)
`
`Persons Served Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`/David M. O’Dell/
`David M. O’Dell
`Registration No. 42,044
`
`11
`
`