Paper 14
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 7, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 7, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–5 and 11–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 B2 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’184 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”), filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`
`provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`conclude that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Gillette would prevail in challenging
`
`claims 1–5 and 11–15 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
`
`as to claims 1–5 and 11–15 of the ’184 patent.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’184 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 ’184 patent. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Intel
`
`Corp. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00455, Paper 4, and in the instant
`
`proceeding: Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-
`
`00799, Paper 1; Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-
`
`00855, Paper 1; and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case
`
`IPR2014-01042, Paper 1.
`
`In each of IPR2014-00455, IPR2014-00799, and IPR2014-00855, we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 11–15 based on the
`
`ground that these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. IPR2014-00455
`
`(Paper 12); IPR2014-00799 (Paper 10); IPR2014-00855 (Paper 11). In
`
`IPR2014-00455, we terminated the proceeding in light of the Written
`
`Settlement Agreement, made in connection with the termination of the
`
`proceeding in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b),
`
`between Intel and Zond. IPR2014-00455, Papers 14, 15; Ex. 1025.
`
`Gillette also filed a revised Motion for Joinder, seeking to join the
`
`instant proceeding with IPR2014-00799. Paper 12 (“Mot.”). In a separate
`
`decision, we grant Gillette’s revised Motion for Joinder, joining the instant
`
`proceeding with IPR2014-00799, and terminating the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`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. 1003) (“Mozgrin”).
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1004) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1007) (“Mozgrin
`Thesis”).1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14,
`and 15
`1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14,
`and 15
`
`3 and 13
`
`3 and 13
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Wang
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and Wang
`
`1–5 and 11–15
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. Gillette provided a
`certified English-language translation (Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim interpretation arguments that Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America
`
`Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) and Zond made in IPR2014-00799.
`
`Compare Pet. 13–15, with ’799 Pet. 13–15; compare Prelim. Resp. 10–16,
`
`with ’799 Prelim. Resp. 10–16.
`
`We construed the claim terms identified by TSMC and Zond in
`
`IPR2014-00799. See ’799 Dec. 8–12. For the purposes of the instant
`
`decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and apply those claim
`
`constructions here.
`
`B. Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`In its Petition, Gillette asserts the same ground of unpatentability
`
`based on Wang and Kudryavtsev, as that on which a trial was instituted in
`
`IPR2014-00799. See Pet. 43–60; ’799 Dec. 28. Gillette’s arguments are
`
`substantively identical to the arguments made by TSMC in IPR2014-00799.
`
`Compare Pet. 43–60, with ’799 Pet. 42–58. Gillette also proffers the same
`
`Declaration of Mr. Richard DeVito that TSMC submitted in support of its
`
`Petition. Compare Ex. 1002, with IPR2014-00799, Ex. 1002. Zond’s
`
`arguments in the Preliminary Response are essentially identical to those
`
`arguments that it made in IPR2014-00799. Compare Prelim. Resp. 46–51,
`
`with ’799 Prelim. Resp. 46–51.
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`
`unpatentability based on Wang and Kudryavtsev (’799 Dec. 14–28), and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine that Gillette has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on that ground of unpatentability.
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 4, 5,
`11, 12, 14,
`and 15
`1, 2, 4, 5,
`11, 12, 14,
`and 15
`3 and 13
`3 and 13
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Wang
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and Wang
`
`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 proceedings 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 these other asserted
`
`grounds for reasons of administrative necessity to ensure timely completion
`
`of the instituted proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`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 1–5 and 11–15 of the ’184
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). At this stage in the
`
`proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to claim
`
`construction or that patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted on the ground that claims 1–5 and 11–15 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2014-00995
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael A. Diener
`Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`Larissa Bifano Park
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
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
