`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v. ZOND, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-01015
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,853,142
`
`CLAIMS 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33-36, 39, and 43
`
`Title: Methods and Apparatus for Generating High-Density Plasma
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 AND § 42.122(b)
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`The Gillette Company and Proctor & Gamble, Inc. (collectively, “Gillette”)
`
`filed the present petition for inter partes review IPR2014-01015 (the “Gillette
`
`IPR”), and moves for joinder of the Gillette IPR with IPR2014-00497 (“the Intel
`
`IPR”), filed by Intel Corporation (“Intel”). The Gillette IPR is identical to the Intel
`
`IPR in all substantive respects, includes identical exhibits, and relies upon the same
`
`expert declarant. Intel does not oppose this motion.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The Gillette IPR and Intel IPR are among a family of inter partes review
`
`proceedings relating to patents that are being asserted by Zond against numerous
`
`defendants in the District of Massachusetts: 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel
`
`Corp.); 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 Semiconductor Ltd., et al. and Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Mfg. Co.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. The Gillette Co., et al.).
`
`In particular, a first complaint in 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel) was
`
`served on Intel on July 9, 2013, and a first complaint in 1:13-cv-11567-DJC
`
`(Zond v. Gillette) was served on Gillette on July 2, 2013. In its complaint, Zond
`
`alleges Gillette infringes ten of Zond’s patents, seven of which overlap with the
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`seven patents Zond alleges Intel of infringing, namely, U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`B2, U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1, U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,147,759 B2, U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716 B2, U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 B2, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421 B2 (the “Overlapping Patents”).1
`
`Currently, inter partes review petitions relating to the Overlapping Patents, are
`
`pending, involving Intel, Gillette, and the other defendants in the District of
`
`Massachusetts litigations. All petitions for inter partes review that have been filed
`
`by Intel and Gillette are timely as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`In addition to this motion, Gillette is moving for joinder of each of its Zond
`
`IPR petitions with the corresponding petitions first filed by Intel, subject to the
`
`same conditions sought by this motion. Intel does not oppose the Gillette motions.
`
`In its May 29, 2014 Order (Paper 5) in IPR2014-00781 and IPR2014-00782,
`
`the Board stated that prior authorization for filing a motion for joinder is not
`
`
`1
`Gillette also has filed petitions for an inter partes review of the three
`
`additional patents asserted by Zond against Gillette. See 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). Gillette does not seek joinder of these petitions.
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`required if sought within one month of the institution date of any inter partes review
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`for which joinder is requested. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.422(b). Inasmuch as the Intel
`
`IPR has not yet been instituted, this motion is, therefore, timely.
`
`Since the May 29, 2014 Order, petitioners Intel, Gillette, TSMC, Fujitsu
`
`Semiconductor Ltd (“Fujitsu”), GlobalFoundries, Inc. (“GlobalFoundries”) AMD,
`
`Inc. (“AMD”), Renesas Elec. Corp. (“Renesas”) and Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.
`
`(“Toshiba”) have completed their filings of substantially the same IPR petitions as
`
`the Intel IPR petitions, including the Intel IPR. The Appendix contains a list of all
`
`IPR petitions for the Overlapping Patents. A conference call with the Board was
`
`held on Monday, August 4, 2014 to discuss TSMC’s pending motion. The Board
`
`issued an order on August 5, 2014 (Paper 13, Case IPR2014-00443), requesting all
`
`petitioners to file motions for joinder within 10 days of the order.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review on the Intel IPR, Gillette
`
`respectfully requests that the Board exercise its discretion to grant joinder of the
`
`Gillette IPR 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, Gillette proposes consolidated filings and
`
`other procedural accommodations designed to streamline the proceedings.
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`A. Reasons Why Joinder Is Appropriate
`Joinder is appropriate 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). The Gillette IPR is substantively identical to the
`
`corresponding Intel 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. Further, Gillette agrees to consolidated filings and
`
`discovery.
`
`Substantively Identical Petitions
`
`1.
`Gillette represents that the Gillette IPR is identical to the Intel IPR in all
`
`substantive respects. It includes identical grounds, analysis, and exhibits and relies
`
`upon the same expert declarant and declaration. Accordingly, if instituted,
`
`maintaining the Gillette IPR proceeding separate from that of Intel would entail
`
`needless duplication of effort.
`
`Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`2.
`Because the grounds of unpatentability in the Gillette IPR and Intel IPR are
`
`the same, the case is amenable to consolidated filings. Gillette agrees to
`
`consolidated filings for all substantive papers (e.g., Reply to the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, Opposition to Motion to Amend, Motion for Observation on Cross
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Examination Testimony of a Reply Witness, Motion to Exclude Evidence,
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence and Reply). Specifically, Gillette agrees
`
`to incorporate its filings with those of Intel in a consolidated filing, subject to the
`
`ordinary page limits for one party. Intel and Gillette will be jointly responsible for
`
`the consolidated filings.
`
`Gillette agrees not to make arguments separate from those advanced by
`
`Gillette and Intel in the consolidated filings. This agreement thus avoids lengthy
`
`and duplicative briefing.
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Gillette and Intel are
`
`using the same expert declarant who has submitted an identical declaration in the
`
`two proceedings. Gillette and Intel will designate an attorney to conduct the cross-
`
`examination of any witness produced by Zond and the redirect of any witness
`
`produced by Gillette or Intel within the timeframe normally allotted by the rules
`
`for one party. Gillette and Intel will not receive separate cross-examination or
`
`redirect time.
`
`B. No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`The Gillette IPR raises no new grounds of unpatentability from those of the
`
`Intel IPR because the petitions are identical.
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`C. No Impact on IPR Trial Schedule
`The small difference between the filing date of the Intel IPR and the Gillette
`
`IPR is without consequence should the proceedings be joined. The trial schedule
`
`for the Intel IPR would not need to be delayed to effect joinder. The joint
`
`proceeding would allow the Board and the parties to focus on the merits in one
`
`consolidated proceeding in a timely manner.
`
`D. Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`Joinder will simplify briefing and discovery because Gillette 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, Gillette and Intel will
`
`engage in consolidated filings and discovery, which will simplify the briefing and
`
`discovery process.
`
`E. No Prejudice to Zond if Proceedings Are Joined
`Zond will suffer no prejudice if the proceedings are joined. In fact, joinder
`
`will decrease the number of papers the parties must file, reduce the time and
`
`expense for depositions and other discovery required in separate proceedings, and
`
`creates case management efficiencies for the Board and parties.
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER
`Petitioner proposes a joinder order for consideration by the Board as follows,
`
`which Intel does not oppose:
`
`
`
`If review is instituted on any ground in the Intel IPR, the Gillette IPR
`
`will be instituted and will be joined with the Intel IPR on the same
`
`grounds. Grounds not instituted because of any finding that the Intel
`
`IPR failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, if any, will
`
`be similarly denied in the Gillette IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`The scheduling order for the Intel IPR will apply for the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`Throughout the proceeding, Intel and Gillette 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 for one party. So long as they both continue to participate in the
`
`merged proceeding, Intel and Gillette will identify each such filing as a
`
`consolidated filing and will be responsible for completing all
`
`consolidated filings.
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`
`
`Intel and Gillette will designate an attorney to conduct the cross
`
`examination of any witness produced by Zond and the redirect of any
`
`witness produced by Intel or Gillette within the timeframe normally
`
`allotted by the rules for one party. Intel and Gillette will not receive
`
`any separate cross-examination or redirect time.
`
`
`
`Zond will conduct any cross-examination of any given witness jointly
`
`produced by Intel or Gillette and the redirect of any given witness
`
`produced by Zond within the timeframe 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 of the
`
`Intel IPR, Gillette respectfully requests that the Board grant joinder of the Gillette
`
`IPR and Intel IPR proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Larissa B. Park/________
`Larissa B. Park
`Reg. No. 59,051
`
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`TEL: (617) 526-6000
`FAX: (617) 526-5000
`EMAIL: larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`“Intel Petitions”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 B2
`U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`“Joinder Petitions”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`APPENDIX
`
`
`IPR2014-00598, IPR2014-00686,
`IPR2014-00765, IPR2014-00820,
`IPR2014-00913
`IPR2014-00843, IPR2014-00923,
`IPR2014-00945
`IPR2014-00494, IPR2014-00495,
`IPR2014-00496, IPR2014-00497,
`IPR2014-00498
`IPR2014-00443, IPR2014-00444,
`IPR2014-00445, IPR2014-00446,
`IPR2014-00447
`IPR2014-00520, IPR2014-00521,
`IPR2014-00522, IPR2014-00523
`IPR2014-00455, IPR2014-00456
`IPR2014-00468, IPR2014-00470,
`IPR2014-00473
`
`
`IPR2014-00828, IPR2014-00829,
`IPR2014-00856, IPR2014-00859,
`IPR2014-00917, IPR2014-00918,
`IPR2014-01017, IPR2014-01019,
`IPR2014-01020, IPR2014-01022,
`IPR2014-01025, IPR2014-01070,
`IPR2014-01072, IPR2014-01073,
`IPR2014-01074, IPR2014-01076
`IPR2014-00861, IPR2014-00864,
`IPR2014-01000, IPR2014-01003,
`IPR2014-01004, IPR2014-01066,
`IPR2014-01088, IPR2014-01089
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`IPR2014-00818, IPR2014-00819,
`IPR2014-00821, IPR2014-00827,
`IPR2014-00863, IPR2014-00865,
`IPR2014-00866, IPR2014-00867,
`IPR2014-01012, IPR2014-01013,
`IPR2014-01014, IPR2014-01015,
`IPR2014-01016, IPR2014-01046,
`IPR2014-01057, IPR2014-01063,
`IPR2014-01075, IPR2014-01098
`IPR2014-00781, IPR2014-00782,
`IPR2014-00845, IPR2014-00850,
`IPR2014-00981, IPR2014-00984,
`IPR2014-00985, IPR2014-00986,
`IPR2014-00988, IPR2014-01047,
`IPR2014-01059, IPR2014-01083,
`IPR2014-01086, IPR2014-01087
`IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808,
`IPR2014-00846, IPR2014-00849,
`IPR2014-00972, IPR2014-00973,
`IPR2014-00974, IPR2014-00975,
`IPR2014-01065, IPR2014-01067,
`IPR2014-01099, IPR2014-01100
`IPR2014-00799, IPR2014-00803,
`IPR2014-00855, IPR2014-00858,
`IPR2014-00995, IPR2014-00996,
`IPR2014-01042, IPR2014-01061
`IPR2014-00800, IPR2014-00802,
`IPR2014-00805, IPR2014-00844,
`IPR2014-00848, IPR2014-00851,
`IPR2014-00990, IPR2014-00991,
`IPR2014-00992, IPR2014-01037,
`IPR2014-01069, IPR2014-01071
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01015)
`
`
`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 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 August 18, 2014
`
`Manner of service Email: gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com;
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S 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 Main Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`/Larissa B. Park/
`Larissa B. Park
`Registration No. 59,051
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 133721661v.1
`
`13