`
`
`Docket No. 076885.0192
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS 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.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01065
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,604,716
`CLAIMS 14-18 AND 25-32
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Renesas Electronics Corporation, Renesas
`
`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, “Petitioner”) filed the present
`
`petition for inter partes review IPR2014-01065 (the “Joint IPR”) and hereby move
`
`for joinder of the Joint IPR with IPR2014-00522, filed by Intel Corporation (the
`
`“Intel IPR”). The Joint IPR is identical to the Intel IPR in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits, and relies upon the same expert declarant. Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and TSMC North America Corp.
`
`(collectively “TSMC”), Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited and Fujitsu Semiconductor
`
`America, Inc. (collectively “Fujitsu”), and The Gillette Company and Proctor &
`
`Gamble, Inc. (collectively, “Gillette”) have filed petitions identical to the Intel IPR
`
`and have likewise moved for joinder with the Intel IPR. Intel Corporation and
`
`Gillette do not oppose this motion. Zond declined to take a position at this time.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The Joint IPR and Intel IPR are among a family of inter partes review
`
`proceedings relating to seven patents that are being asserted by Zond, Inc.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`(“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 and TSMC);
`
`and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.).
`
`In particular, a first complaint in 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel) was
`
`served on defendant Intel Corporation on July 9, 2013. The following table
`
`summarizes the dates on which a first complaint was served on Petitioner.
`
`Defendant Group
`
`Case
`
`AMD
`
`GlobalFoundries
`
`Renesas
`
`Toshiba
`
`Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al., Case
`No. 1:13-cv-11577-DPW
`Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al., Case
`No. 1:13-cv-11577-DPW
`Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp., Case
`No.1:13-cv-11625-NMG
`Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp.
`Inc., Case No.1:13-cv-11581-DJC
`
`Service Date of First
`Complaint
`July 2, 2013
`
`December 5, 2013
`
`July 8, 2013
`
`July 3, 2013
`
`Accordingly, all petitions for inter partes review that have been filed by defendants
`
`Intel, AMD, GlobalFoundries, Renesas, and Toshiba are timely as prescribed by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`On April 18, 2014, in 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel), the Court entered
`
`an order granting Intel’s Motion to Stay pending inter partes review, indicating
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`that “the Court will benefit from the expert claim analysis of the PTO.” Order
`
`Granting Mot. to Stay, Dkt. No. 120.
`
`On June 6, 2014, as clarified on July 22, 2014, in 11:13-cv-11577-DPW
`
`(Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al), the Court entered an order to administratively stay the
`
`case pending conclusion of inter partes reviews.
`
`Currently, the family of inter partes review proceedings relating to the seven
`
`Zond patents (the “Zond IPRs”) consists of the following proceedings initiated by
`
`Intel and later by only the GlobalFoundries entities or jointly by AMD,
`
`GlobalFoundries, Renesas, and Toshiba:
`
`Intel IPRs
`
`Joint IPRs
`
`GlobalFoundries IPRs
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Intel
`Ref
`
`Intel
`Filed
`
`Joint Ref
`
`Joint
`Filed
`
`6,805,779 2014-
`00598
`
`04/09/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`04/24/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`GF Ref
`
`GF Filed
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`IPR2014-
`01073
`
`IPR2014-
`01076
`
`06/30/14
`
`06/30/14
`
`1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-
`27 and 29
`
`5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and
`43
`
`05/16/14
`
`05/27/14
`
`06/06/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01070
`
`IPR2014-
`01072
`
`IPR2014-
`01074
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`30-37, 39, 40
`
`16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and
`46
`
`7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and
`44
`
`2014-
`00686
`
`2014-
`00765
`
`2014-
`00820
`
`2014-
`00913
`
`2014-
`00945
`
`2014-
`00843
`
`6,806,652 2014-
`00923
`
`06/10/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/12/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`IPR2014-
`01089
`IPR2014-
`01088
`
`07/01/14
`
`07/01/14
`
`05/29/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01066
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`3
`
`35
`
`1-17
`
`18-34
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`6,853,142 2014-
`00498
`
`03/13/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014-
`01098
`
`07/01/14
`
`40, 41
`
`2014-
`00494
`
`2014-
`00495
`
`2014-
`00496
`
`2014-
`00497
`
`03/13/14
`
`03/13/14
`
`03/13/14
`
`03/13/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01075
`
`IPR2014-
`01057
`
`IPR2014-
`01046
`
`IPR2014-
`01063
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`1, 3-10, 12, 15, 17-20,
`42
`
`2, 11, 13, 14, 16
`
`21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32,
`37, 38
`
`22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33-
`36, 39, 43
`
`7,147,759 2014-
`00443
`
`03/06/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`IPR2014-
`01086
`
`IPR2014-
`01087
`
`IPR2014-
`01083
`
`06/30/14
`
`06/30/14
`
`1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18, 44
`
`2, 3, 5-9, 13-16, 19,
`41-43, 45
`
`06/30/14
`
`40
`
`03/06/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`03/06/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`2014-
`00444
`
`2014-
`00447
`
`2014-
`00445
`
`03/06/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01047
`
`06/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39,
`47, 49
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`2014-
`00446
`
`03/06/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01059
`
`06/27/14
`
`
`
`7,604,716 2014-
`00520
`
`03/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`03/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`22-33, 37, 46, 48, 50
`
`IPR2014-
`01099
`
`IPR2014-
`01100
`
`07/01/14
`
`07/01/14
`
`1-11 and 33
`
`12 and 13
`
`2014-
`00521
`
`2014-
`00522
`
`2014-
`00523
`
`03/27/14
`
`03/27/14
`
`7,808,184 2014-
`00455
`
`03/07/14
`
`2014-
`00456
`
`03/07/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01065
`
`IPR2014-
`01067
`
`IPR2014-
`01042
`
`IPR2014-
`01061
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`14-18 and 25-32
`
`19-24
`
`
`
`06/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`1-5, 11-15
`
`6-10, 16-20
`
`
`
`7,811,421
`
`2014-
`00468
`
`2014-
`00470
`
`03/07/14
`
`03/07/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01037
`
`IPR2014-
`01071
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`1, 2, 8, 10-13, 15-17,
`22-25, 27-30, 33, 34,
`38, 39, 42, 43, 46-48
`
`9, 14, 21, 26, 35, 37
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`2014-
`00473
`
`03/07/14
`
`IPR2014-
`01069
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36,
`40, 41, 44, 45
`
`Similar to the above petitions, TSMC, Fujitsu, and/or Gillette also filed
`
`petitions that address the same patent claims as the Joint IPR and the Intel IPR.
`
`For the Joint IPR, the corresponding petitions are Case Nos. IPR2014-00807,
`
`IPR2014-00846, IPR2014-00974.
`
`The petitions for IPR filed by Petitioner are the same as the petitions first
`
`filed by Intel against the same patent claims, and are identical to the Intel petitions
`
`in all substantive respects. They include identical grounds, analysis, and exhibits
`
`and rely upon the same expert declarants and declarations.
`
`In addition to this motion, Petitioner is presently filing motions for joinder
`
`of each of their Zond IPR petitions with the corresponding petitions first filed by
`
`Intel, subject to the same conditions sought by this motion. Intel and Gillette do
`
`not oppose any of Petitioner’s motions while Zond declined to take a position on
`
`the motions at this time. Moreover, Petitioner understands that other Zond
`
`petitioners have or will file a motion for joinder agreeing to the same conditions
`
`herein.
`
`In its August 5, 2014 Order in IPR2014-01086 and IPR2014-01047, the
`
`Board articulated that Petitioner must file its motions for joinder within ten
`
`business days. The order resulted from an August 4, 2014 Board conference call
`
`attended by Zond, Intel, TSMC, Fujitsu, Gillette, AMD, GlobalFoundries, Renesas,
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`and Toshiba. During the conference call, the Petitioner sought guidance from the
`
`Board on filing of motions for joinder that will minimize the burden on the Board
`
`and help streamline the proceedings.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board exercise its discretion to grant joinder of the Joint IPR and
`
`Intel IPR proceedings 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, Petitioner proposes consolidated
`
`filings and other procedural accommodations designed to streamline the
`
`proceedings.
`
`1.
`
`Reasons Why Joinder is Appropriate
`
`Joinder is appropriate in this case 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). Intentionally, the Joint 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, Petitioner will
`
`agree to consolidated filings and discovery, and procedural concessions, which
`
`Intel does not oppose.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`a)
`
`Substantively Identical Petitions
`
`Petitioner represents that the Joint 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 Joint IPR proceeding separate from that of Intel would entail
`
`needless duplication of effort.
`
`b)
`
`Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`Because the grounds of unpatentability in the Joint IPR and Intel IPR are the
`
`same, the case is amenable to consolidated filings. Petitioner will agree to
`
`consolidated filings for all substantive papers in the proceeding (e.g., Reply to the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Opposition to Motion to Amend, Motion for
`
`Observation on Cross Examination Testimony of a Reply Witness, Motion to
`
`Exclude Evidence, Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence and Reply).
`
`Specifically, Petitioner will agree to incorporate its filings with those of Intel in a
`
`consolidated filing, subject to the ordinary rules for one party on page limits. Intel
`
`and Petitioner will be jointly responsible for the consolidated filings.
`
`Petitioner agrees not to be permitted any arguments separate from those
`
`advanced by Petitioner and Intel in the consolidated filings. These limitations
`
`avoid lengthy and duplicative briefing.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Petitioner and Intel are
`
`using the same expert declarant who has submitted the same, identical declaration
`
`in the two proceedings. Petitioner and Intel will designate an attorney to conduct
`
`the cross-examination of any given witness produced by Zond and the redirect of
`
`any given witness produced by Petitioner or Intel within the timeframe normally
`
`allotted by the rules for one party. Petitioner will not receive any separate cross-
`
`examination or redirect time.
`
`2.
`
`No New Grounds of Patentability
`
`The Joint IPR raises no new grounds of unpatentability from those of the
`
`Intel IPR because, in fact, the petitions are identical.
`
`3.
`
`No Impact on IPR Trial Schedule
`
`The small difference between the filing date of the Joint IPR and the Intel
`
`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 based on Zond’s
`
`preliminary response and later-filed Joint IPR. The joint proceeding would allow
`
`the Board and parties to focus on the merits in one consolidated proceeding
`
`without unnecessary duplication of effort, and in a timely manner.
`
`4.
`
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`
`Joinder will simplify briefing and discovery because Petitioner 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, Petitioner and Intel
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`will engage in consolidated filings and discovery, which will simplify the briefing
`
`and discovery process.
`
`5.
`
`No Prejudice to Zond if Proceedings are Joined
`
`Petitioner proposes joinder to streamline the proceedings and reduce the
`
`costs and burdens on the parties. Petitioner believes joinder will achieve these
`
`goals for several reasons. First, joinder will most certainly decrease the number of
`
`papers the parties must file, by eliminating a duplicative proceeding. Second,
`
`joinder will also reduce by half the time and expense for depositions and other
`
`discovery required in separate proceedings. Third, joinder creates case
`
`management efficiencies for the Board and parties without any prejudice to Zond.
`
`PROPOSED ORDER
`
`Petitioner proposes a joinder order for consideration by the Board as
`
`follows, which Intel and Gillette do not oppose and Zond has declined to take a
`
`position:
`
`• If review is instituted on any ground in the Intel IPR, the Joint IPR
`
`will be instituted and will be joined with the Intel IPR on the same
`
`grounds. Grounds not instituted because the Intel IPR failed to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, if any, will be similarly
`
`denied in the Joint IPR.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`• The scheduling order for the Intel IPR will apply for the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`• Throughout the proceeding, Intel and Petitioner 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. So long as they both continue to participate in the joined
`
`proceeding, Intel and Petitioner will identify each such filing as a
`
`Consolidated Filing and will be responsible for completing all
`
`consolidated filings.
`
`• Intel and Petitioner will designate an attorney to conduct the cross
`
`examination of any given witness produced by Zond and the redirect
`
`of any given witness produced by Intel or Petitioner within the
`
`timeframe normally allotted by the rules for one party. Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, if the Director institutes inter partes review,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant joinder of the Joint IPR and
`
`Respectfully submitted
`
`/s/ Robinson Vu
`
`
`
`
`
`Robinson Vu (Reg. No. 60,211),
`
`Intel IPR proceedings.
`
`Date: August 19, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`
`910 LOUISIANA ST
`
`HOUSTON, TX 77002
`
`713 229-1715
`
`robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01065)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`
`
`
`
`
`Documents served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons Served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 19, 2014
`
`Email: gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com;
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Robinson Vu
`
`
`
`
`
`Robinson Vu (Reg. No. 60,211)
`
`12