Paper 11
`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,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01067
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01067
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01067
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners (collectively, “AMD”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 19–24 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1301, “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 19–24. 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 IPR2014-00523;
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manuf. Co., v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00808;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01067
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00849; and The
`Gillette Co. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00975.
`In IPR2014-00523, 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). IPR2014-00523, Paper 7; IPR2014-00520, Ex. 1023.
`In each of IPR2014-00808 and IPR2014-00849, we instituted inter
`partes review of claims 19–24 of the ’716 patent, based on the following
`ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`21
`19 and 20
`22–24
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103 Wang and Kudryavtsev
`§ 103 Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman
`§ 103 Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`We joined IPR2014-00849 with IPR2014-00808, and terminated IPR2014-
`00849. See IPR2014-00849, Paper 12.
`AMD filed a revised Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-00808.
`Paper 9. In a separate Decision, we grant AMD’s revised Motion, joining
`the instant proceeding with IPR2014-00808, 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. 1304)
`Lantsman US 6,190,512 B1
` Feb. 20, 2001
`(Ex. 1306)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01067
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Skerbov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28 SOV. PHYS. TECH.
`PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1305) ( “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. 1307) (“Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`AMD asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`22–24
`19, 20
`
`21
`
`21
`19, 20
`22–24
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`References
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`Thesis
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim construction arguments that Taiwan
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. Petitioner has also
`submitted a certified English-language translation (Ex. 1308).
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01067
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) and Zond made in IPR2014-00808. Compare
`Pet. 14–16, with ’808 Pet. 13–15; compare Prelim. Resp. 15–20, with ’808
`Prelim. Resp. 15–20.
`We construed several claim terms identified by TSMC and Zond in
`IPR2014-00808. See ’808 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 in Combination with
`Other Cited Prior Art References
`In its Petition, AMD asserts the same three grounds of unpatentability
`based on the combinations of Wang, Kudryavtsev, Lantsman, and Mozgrin
`as those on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00808. See Pet. 40–57;
`’808 Dec. 31. AMD’s arguments are substantively identical to the
`arguments made by TSMC in IPR2014-00808. Compare Pet. 40–57, with
`’808 Pet. 39–56. AMD also proffers the same Declaration of Dr. Uwe
`Kortshagen that TSMC submitted in support of its Petition. Compare Ex.
`1302, with IPR2014-00808 Ex. 1302. Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary
`Response are essentially identical to those arguments that it made in
`IPR2014-00808. Compare Prelim. Resp. 20–59, with ’808 Prelim. Resp.
`20–59.
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds
`of unpatentability based on the combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev,
`Lantsman, and Mozgrin (’808 Dec. 12–30), and determine that AMD has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this ground of
`unpatentability.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01067
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`AMD also asserts that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman; claim
`21 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin Thesis; and claims 22–24 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
`AMD would prevail in challenging claims 19–24 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01067
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds:
`1. Claim 21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`over Wang and Kudryavtsev;
`2. Claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman; and
`3. Claims 22–24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over 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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01067
`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:
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
`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
