Paper 11
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 7, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENASAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES 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 IPR2014-01061
`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
`____________
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENASAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES 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 IPR2014-01061
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01061
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Renesas Electronics Corporation,
`
`Renasas Electronics America, Inc., GlobalFoundries 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 (collectively, “AMD”) filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 6–10 and 16–20 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’184 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 6–10 and 16–20 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 6–10 and 16–20 of the ’184 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01061
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`AMD indicates that the ’184 patent was asserted against numerous
`
`parties in the District of Massachusetts. Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00456, Paper 4, and in the instant
`
`proceeding: Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-
`
`00803, Paper 2; Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-
`
`00858, Paper 1; and Gillette Co. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00996,
`
`Paper 3.
`
`In each of IPR2014-00456, IPR2014-00803, and IPR2014-00858, we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 6–10 and 16-20 based on the
`
`grounds that claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev, and that claims 8
`
`and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang,
`
`Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin. IPR2014-00456 (Paper 12); IPR2014-00803
`
`(Paper 9); IPR2014-00858 (Paper 12). In IPR2014-00456, 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. Intel
`
`Corp. v. Zond, LLC, IPR 2014-00456 (PTAB) (Papers 14, 15); Intel Corp. v.
`
`Zond, LLC, IPR2014-00455 (PTAB) (Ex. 1025).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01061
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMD also filed a revised Motion for Joinder, seeking to join the
`
`instant proceeding with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. v. Zond,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2014-00803 (PTAB). Paper 9 (“Mot.”). In a separate
`
`decision, we grant AMD’s revised Motion for Joinder, joining the instant
`
`proceeding with IPR2014-00803, and terminating the instant proceeding.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`AMD relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1
`
`Wang
`
`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”).
`
`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. 1104) (“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. 1107) (“Mozgrin
`Thesis”).1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`AMD asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. AMD provided a
`certified English-language translation (Ex. 1106).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01061
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`and 20
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`8 and 18
`
`§ 103(a) 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
`
`Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) and Zond made in IPR2014-00803
`
`(“’803”). Compare Pet. 13–15, with ’803 Pet. 13–15; compare Prelim.
`
`Resp. 11–16, with ’803 Prelim. Resp. 11–16.
`
`We construed the claim terms identified by TSMC and Zond in
`
`IPR2014-00803. See ’803 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 in Combination with
`Other Cited Prior Art References
`
`In its Petition, AMD asserts the same two grounds of unpatentability
`
`based on various combinations of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin, as that
`
`on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00803. See Pet. 43–59; ’803 Dec.
`
`31–32. AMD’s arguments are substantively identical to the arguments made
`
`by TSMC in IPR2014-00803. Compare Pet. 43–59, with ’803 Pet. 44–59.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01061
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMD also proffers the same Declaration of Mr. Richard DeVito that TSMC
`
`submitted in support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1102, with IPR2014-
`
`00803, Ex. 1102. Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are
`
`essentially identical to those arguments that it made in IPR2014-00803.
`
`Compare Prelim. Resp. 44–51, with ’803 Prelim. Resp. 44–51.
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the two asserted
`
`grounds of unpatentability based on various combinations of Wang and
`
`other cited prior art references (’803 Dec. 13–31), and determine that AMD
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those two grounds
`
`of unpatentability.
`
`
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`AMD also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01061
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 6–10 and 16–20 of the ’184
`
`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 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`
`and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev, and that claims 8 and 18 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01061
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David M. Tennant
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`Brian M. Berliner
`bberliner@omm.com
`
`Ryan K. Yagura
`ryagura@omm.com
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`John Feldhaus
`jfeldhaus@foley.com
`
`Pavan Agarwal
`pagarwal@foley.com
`
`Mike Houston
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`Robinson Vu
`Robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
