`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: October 9, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
`COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., and
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners (collectively, “AMD”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,147,759 B2 (Ex. 1301, “the ’759 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“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 AMD would prevail in challenging
`
`claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 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 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the ’759 patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’759 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.).
`
`Ex. 1320; Paper 5. They also identify other proceedings in which Zond
`
`asserted the ’759 patent. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 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 the
`
`instant proceeding: Intel Corp. v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00446;
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00782;
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00850; and The
`
`Gillette Co. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00986.
`
`In each of IPR2014-00446, IPR2014-00782, and IPR2014-00850, we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the
`
`’759 patent, based on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22–26, 28–31, 37, 46, 48
`
`§ 103 Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`27, 32, 33, 50
`
`§ 103 Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`We terminated IPR2014-00446 and IPR2014-00850, but not
`
`IPR2014-00782. In IPR2014-00446, 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. IPR2014-00446, Papers 14,
`
`15; IPR2014-00443, Ex. 1035. We further joined IPR2014-00850 with
`
`IPR2014-00782, and terminated IPR2014-00850. IPR2014-00850,
`
`Paper 12.
`
`Additionally, AMD filed a revised Motion for Joinder with
`
`IPR2014-00782. Paper 9 (“Mot.”). In a separate decision, we grant AMD’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`revised Motion, joining the instant proceeding with IPR2014-00782, and
`
`terminating the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`AMD relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1
`
` July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1305)
`
`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. 1303, “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 (1983) (Ex. 1304, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`AMD asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22–33, 37, 46, 48, 50
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`22–26, 28–31, 37, 46, 48
`
`§ 103 Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`27, 32, 33, 50
`
`§ 103 Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim interpretation arguments that Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America
`
`Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) and Zond made in IPR2014-00782. Compare
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 15–18, with IPR2014-00782, Paper 2 (“’782 Pet.”), 14–18; compare
`
`Prelim. Resp. 17–21, with IPR2014-00782, Paper 9 (“’782 Prelim. Resp.”),
`
`16–21. We construed the claim terms identified by AMD and Zond in
`
`IPR2014-00782. See IPR2014-00782, Paper 11 (“’782 Dec.”), 6–9. For the
`
`purposes of the instant Decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and
`
`apply those claim constructions here.
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Wang in Combination with Other Cited
`Prior Art References
`
`In its Petition, AMD asserts the same two grounds of unpatentability
`
`based on the combinations of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin, as those on
`
`which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00782. See Pet. 38–59; ’782
`
`Dec. 26. AMD’s arguments are identical to the arguments made by AMD in
`
`IPR2014-00782. Compare Pet. 38–59, with ’782 Pet. 38–59. AMD also
`
`proffers the same Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen that AMD submitted
`
`in support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1302, with IPR2014-00782,
`
`Ex. 1302. Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are essentially
`
`identical to those arguments that it made in IPR2014-00782. Compare
`
`Prelim. Resp. 22–53, with ’782 Prelim. Resp. 21–53.
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds
`
`of unpatentability based on the combinations of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and
`
`Mozgrin (’782 Dec. 9–25), and determine that AMD has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those asserted grounds of
`
`unpatentability.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`AMD also asserts that claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev. 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 this asserted ground 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
`
`AMD would prevail in challenging claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of
`
`the ’759 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 the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims, including the claim construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22–26, 28–31, 37, 46, 48
`
`§ 103 Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`27, 32, 33, 50
`
`§ 103 Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01059
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David Tennant
`White & Case LLP
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`Brian Berliner
`Ryan Yagura
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`O’Melveny & Meyers LLO
`bberliner@omm.com
`ryagura@omm.com
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`Robinson Vu
`Baker Botts LLP
`Robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`John Feldhaus
`Pavan Agarwal
`Michael Houston
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`jfeldhaus@foley.com
`pagarwal@foley.com
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com