`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 19, 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 IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners (collectively, “AMD”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 30–37, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2
`
`(Ex. 1201, “the ’779 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”), filed
`
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“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 30–37, 39, and 40 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 30–37, 39, and 40 of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`AMD indicates that the ’779 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.). Pet. 1.
`
`AMD also identifies other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’779
`
`patent. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 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 IPR2014-00765; Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00828; Fujitsu
`
`Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00856; and The Gillette
`
`Co. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01022.
`
`In IPR2014-00765, we terminated the proceeding, prior to institution,
`
`in light of the Joint Motion to Terminate and 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 Corp. and
`
`Zond. IPR2014-00765, Papers 9, 10; IPR2014-00598, Ex. 1013.
`
`In each of IPR2014-0828 and IPR2014-00856, we instituted an inter
`
`partes review of claims 30–37, 39, and 40 of the ’779 patent, based on the
`
`following grounds of unpatentability (see, e.g., IPR2014-00828, Paper 9
`
`(“’828 Dec.”), 26):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`34, 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`We further joined IPR2014-00856 with IPR2014-00828, and
`
`terminated IPR2014-00856. IPR2014-00856, Paper 12.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMD filed a revised Motion for Joinder, seeking to join with
`
`IPR2014-00828, and Zond filed an Opposition to AMD’s Motion. Papers 8,
`
`9. In a separate decision, we grant AMD’s revised Motion for Joinder,
`
`joining the instant proceeding with IPR2014-00828, and terminating the
`
`instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`AMD relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`Pinsley
`Angelbeck
`Iwamura
`
`
`Wells
`Lovelock
`
`
`US 3,761,836
`US 3,514,714
`US 5,753,886
`
`Sept. 25, 1973
`May 26, 1970
`May 19, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1205)
`(Ex. 1206)
`(Ex. 1207)
`
`PCT WO 83/01349
`EP 0 242 028 A2
`
`
`Apr. 14, 1983
`Oct. 21, 1987
`
`(Ex. 1214)
`(Ex. 1215)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS, NO. 5, 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1203, “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. 1204, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`AMD asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`34, 39
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley1
`
`34, 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`AMD makes the same claim interpretation arguments that TSMC
`
`made in IPR2014-00828. Compare Pet. 18–19, with IPR2014-00828,
`
`Paper 2 (“’828 Pet.”), 19–20. We construed several claim terms in the
`
`Decision on Institution for IPR2014-00828. See ’828 Dec. 7–10. For the
`
`
`1 Pinsley is omitted inadvertently from each statement of the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability based on Iwamura, although included in the
`corresponding analysis. See Pet. 41, 47, 56, 58. Therefore, we treat the
`statements as mere harmless error and presume that AMD intended to assert
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable under § 103(a) based, in whole,
`or in part, on the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purposes of the instant decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and
`
`apply those claim constructions here.
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Iwamura in Combination with Other Cited References
`
`In its Petition, AMD asserts the same grounds of unpatentability based
`
`on various combinations of Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, Wells, and
`
`Lovelock, as those on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00828. See
`
`Pet. 41–60; ’828 Dec. 26. AMD’s arguments are substantively identical to
`
`the arguments made by TSMC in IPR2014-00828. Compare Pet. 41–60,
`
`with ’828 Pet. 41–60. AMD also proffers the same Declaration of Dr. Uwe
`
`Kortshagen that TSMC submitted in support of its Petition. Compare
`
`Ex. 1202, with IPR2014-00828 Ex. 1202. Zond’s arguments in the
`
`Preliminary Response are essentially identical to those arguments that it
`
`made in IPR2014-00828. Compare Prelim. Resp. 18–49, with IPR2014-
`
`00828, Paper 8 (“’828 Prelim. Resp.”), 18–49.
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds
`
`of unpatentability based on various combinations of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`Pinsley, Wells, and Lovelock (’828 Dec. 10–25), and determine that AMD
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those grounds of
`
`unpatentability.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`AMD also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`34, 39
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`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 30–37, 39, and 40 of the ’779
`
`patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). At this stage in the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`34, 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01070
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Robinson Vu
`Robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`John Feldhaus
`jfeldhaus@foley.com
`
`Pavan Agarwal
`pagarwal@foley.com
`
`Michael Houston
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`David Tennant
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`Brian Berliner
`bberliner@omm.com
`
`Ryan Yagura
`ryagura@omm.com
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`