`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: October 16, 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.,
`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, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01065
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01065
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners (collectively, “AMD”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 14–18 and 25–32 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1201, “the ’716 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Zond, LLC (“Zond”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that
`an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and
`the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 14–18 and 25–32.
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’716 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.). Pet. 1;
`Paper 5. They also identify other proceedings in which Zond asserted the
`’716 patent. Id.
`
`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 IPR2014-00522;
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manuf. Co., v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00807;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01065
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00846; and The
`Gillette Co. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00974.
`In IPR2014-00522, we terminated the proceeding, prior to institution,
`in light of the Joint Motion to Terminate and Written Settlement Agreement
`filed by Intel and Zond in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.74(b). IPR2014-00522, Paper 7; IPR2014-00520, Ex. 1023.
`In each of IPR2014-00807 and IPR2014-00846, we instituted inter
`partes review of claims 14–18 and 25–32 of the ’716 patent, based on the
`following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`14–18, 25–32
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103 Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`We joined IPR2014-00846 with IPR2014-00807, and terminated IPR2014-
`00846. See IPR2014-00846, Paper 12.
`AMD filed a revised Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-00807.
`Paper 9. In a separate Decision, we grant AMD’s revised Motion, joining
`the instant proceeding with IPR2014-00807, 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. 1204)
`
`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. 1203) (“Mozgrin”).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01065
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28 SOV. PHYS. TECH.
`PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1205) ( “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`AMD asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`14–18, 25–32
`14–18, 25–32
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`References
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim construction arguments that Taiwan
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America
`Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) and Zond made in IPR2014-00807. Compare
`Pet. 11–13, with ’807 Pet. 12–14; compare Prelim. Resp. 15–20, with ’807
`Prelim. Resp. 15–20.
`We construed several claim terms identified by TSMC and Zond in
`IPR2014-00807. See ’807 Dec. 6–11. 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, AMD asserts the same ground of unpatentability based
`on the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev, as that on which a trial was
`instituted in IPR2014-00807. See Pet. 40–59; ’807 Dec. 24. AMD’s
`arguments are substantively identical to the arguments made by TSMC in
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01065
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00807. Compare Pet. 40–60, with ’807 Pet. 40–59. AMD also
`proffers the same Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen that TSMC submitted
`in support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1202, with IPR2014-00807
`Ex. 1202. Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are essentially
`identical to those arguments that it made in IPR2014-00807. Compare
`Prelim. Resp. 20–55, with ’807 Prelim. Resp. 20–55.
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`unpatentability based on the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev (’807
`Dec. 12–24), and determine that AMD has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on this ground of unpatentability.
`
`C. Other Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`AMD also asserts that claims 14–18 and 25–32 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious 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 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
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01065
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMD would prevail in challenging claims 14–18 and 25–32 of the ’716
`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.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 14–18 and 25–32 as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01065
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Robinson Vu
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`robinson.vu@bakerbotts.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 K. Agarwal
`pagarwal@foley.com
`
`John J. Feldhaus
`jfeldhaus@foley.com
`
`Mike R. Houston
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`David M. Tennant
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`7