`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: October 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00973
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00973
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 12 and 13 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’716 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Zond,
`
`LLC (“Zond”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that
`
`an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and
`
`the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Gillette would prevail in challenging claims 12 and 13. Accordingly,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`
`instituted as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’716 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Gillette Co., No. 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Gillette also
`
`identifies other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’716 patent. Id.
`
`B. Related Inter Partes Reviews
`
`The following Petitions for inter partes review also challenge the
`
`same claims, based on the same grounds of unpatentability as those in the
`
`instant proceeding: Intel Corp. v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00521; and
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-01100.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00973
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`In IPR2014-00521, we terminated the proceeding, prior to institution,
`
`in light of the Joint Motion to Terminate and Written Settlement Agreement
`
`filed by Intel and Zond in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.74(b). IPR2014-00521, Paper 7; IPR2014-00520, Ex. 1023.
`
`In IPR2014-01100, we instituted inter partes review of claims 12 and
`
`13 of the ’716 patent, based on the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`12, 13
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103 Wang and Lantsman
`
`
`Gillette filed a revised Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-01100. Paper 10.
`
`In a separate Decision, we grant Gillette’s revised Motion, joining the instant
`
`proceeding with IPR2014-01100, and terminating the instant proceeding.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`US 6,413,382 B1
`
` July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1104)
`
`Lantsman US 6,190,512 B1
`
` Feb. 20, 2001
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1103) (“Mozgrin”)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00973
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`12, 13
`
`12, 13
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
`Wang and Lantsman
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim construction arguments that
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`One LLC & Co. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two
`
`LLC & Co. KG (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) and Zond made in
`
`IPR2014-01100. Compare Pet. 12–14, with ’1100 Pet. 11–13; compare
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10–16, with ’1100 Prelim. Resp. 10–16.
`
`We construed several claim terms identified by GlobalFoundries and
`
`Zond in IPR2014-01100. See ’1100 Dec. 6–11. For the purposes of the
`
`instant decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and apply those claim
`
`constructions here.
`
`B. Obviousness Over Wang and Lantsman
`
`In its Petition, Gillette asserts over the same ground of unpatentability based on
`
`the combination of Wang and Lantsman, as that on which trial was instituted in IPR2014-
`
`01100. See Pet. 33–45; ’1100 Dec. 23. Gillette’s arguments are substantively
`
`identical to the arguments made by GlobalFoundries in IPR2014-01100.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00973
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`Compare Pet. 33–45, with ’1100 Pet. 32–44. Gillette also proffers the same
`
`Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen that GlobalFoundries submitted in
`
`support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1102, with IPR2014-01100 Ex. 1102.
`
`Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are essentially identical to
`
`those arguments that it made in IPR2014-01199. Compare Prelim. Resp.
`
`16–42, with ’1100 Prelim. Resp. 16–42.
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`
`unpatentability based on the combination of Wang and Lantsman (’1100
`
`Dec. 12–22), and determine that Gillette has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on this ground of unpatentability.
`
`C. Other Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette also asserts that claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Mozgrin and Lantsman.
`
`The Board’s rules for inter partes review proceedings, including those
`
`pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (regulations for inter partes review take into account
`
`“the efficient administration of the Office” and “the ability of the Office to
`
`timely complete [instituted] proceedings”). Therefore, we exercise our
`
`discretion and do not institute a review based on this asserted ground for
`
`reasons of administrative necessity to ensure timely completion of the
`
`instituted proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00973
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Gillette would prevail in challenging claims 12 and 13 of the ’716 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. At this stage in the proceeding, we
`
`have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of any
`
`of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 12 and 13 as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Wang and Lantsman;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00973
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Diener
`Larissa Park
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`