throbber
Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`
`Docket No. 0008346-00237 IPR3
`
`
`
`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. IPR2014-01071
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,811,421
`CLAIMS 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 AND 37
`TITLE: HIGH DEPOSITION RATE SPUTTERING
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REVISED MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 AND § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`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 IPR2014-01071 (the “Joint IPR”) and hereby move
`
`for joinder of the Joint IPR with IPR2014-00802, filed by Taiwan Semiconductor
`
`Manufacturing Company (the “TSMC IPR”). The Joint IPR is identical to the
`
`TSMC IPR in all substantive respects, includes identical exhibits, and relies upon
`
`the same expert declarant. 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 TSMC IPR and will likewise move for joinder with the TSMC IPR
`
`concurrent with the present motion. TSMC, Fujitsu, and Gillette do not oppose
`
`this motion while Zond declined to take a position at this time.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The Joint IPR and TSMC IPR are among a family of inter partes review
`
`proceedings relating to seven patents that are being asserted by Zond, Inc.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`(“Zond”) against numerous defendants in the District of Massachusetts: 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.).
`
`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
`
`AMD, GlobalFoundries, Renesas, and Toshiba are timely as prescribed by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`Currently, the family of inter partes review proceedings relating to the seven
`
`Zond patents (the “Zond IPRs”) consists of the following proceedings initiated by
`
`TSMC and later by only the GlobalFoundries entities or jointly by AMD,
`
`GlobalFoundries, Renesas, and Toshiba:
`
`TSMC IPRs
`
`Joint IPRs
`
`GlobalFoundries
`IPRs
`
`Claims
`
`GF Ref
`
`GF Filed
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`IPR2014
`-01073
`IPR2014
`-01076
`
`06/30/14 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-
`27 and 29
`06/30/14 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23,
`and 43
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`30-40
`
`30-37, 39, 40
`
`16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and
`46
`7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and
`44
`
`Patent
`
`6,805,779
`
`TSMC
`Ref
`
`TSMC
`Filed
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-00828
`
`Joint
`Ref
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`Joint
`Filed
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`05/28/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-00829
`IPR2014
`-00917
`
`05/28/14
`
`06/09/14
`
`IPR2014
`-01070
`IPR2014
`-01072
`IPR2014
`-01074
`
`06/30/14
`
`06/30/14
`
`06/30/14
`
`6,806,652
`
`6,853,142
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-00861
`
`05/30/14
`
`IPR2014
`-01066
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-00818
`IPR2014
`-00821
`IPR2014
`-00819
`
`05/27/14
`
`05/27/14
`
`05/27/14
`
`IPR2014
`-01075
`IPR2014
`-01057
`IPR2014
`-01046
`
`
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-01089
`IPR2014
`-01088
`
`07/01/14 35
`
`07/01/14 1-17
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`18-34
`
`
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-01098
`
`07/01/14 40, 41
`
`06/30/14
`
`06/27/14
`
`06/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`IPR2014
`-00827
`
`05/28/14
`
`IPR2014
`-01063
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33-
`36, 39, 43
`
`7,147,759
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-01086
`IPR2014
`-01087
`IPR2014
`-01083
`
`IPR2014
`-00781
`IPR2014
`-00782
`
`05/19/14
`
`05/19/14
`
`IPR2014
`-01047
`IPR2014
`-01059
`
`06/27/14
`
`06/27/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`7,604,716
`
`7,808,184
`
`7,811,421
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-00807
`IPR2014
`-00808
`
`IPR2014
`-00799
`IPR2014
`-00803
`
`IPR2014
`-00800
`
`IPR2014
`-00802
`IPR2014
`-00805
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`05/23/14
`
`05/23/14
`
`05/22/14
`
`05/22/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2014
`-01065
`IPR2014
`-01067
`
`IPR2014
`-01042
`IPR2014
`-01061
`
`05/22/14
`
`05/22/14
`
`05/23/14
`
`IPR2014
`-01037
`IPR2014
`-01071
`IPR2014
`-01069
`
`
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`IPR2014
`-01099
`IPR2014
`-01100
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`06/27/14
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14
`
`n/a
`
`06/30/14 1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18, 44
`06/30/14 2, 3, 5-9, 13-16, 19,
`41-43, 45
`
`06/30/14 40
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39,
`47, 49
`
`22-33, 37, 46, 48, 50
`
`07/01/14 1-11 and 33
`
`07/01/14 12 and 13
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`14-18 and 25-32
`
`19-24
`
`1-5, 11-15
`
`6-10, 16-20
`
`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
`
`3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36,
`40, 41, 44, 45
`
`Similar to the above petitions, Fujitsu and/or Gillette also filed petitions that
`
`address the same patent claims as the Joint IPR and the TSMC IPR. For the Joint
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`IPR, Fujitsu’s corresponding petition is IPR2014-00848 and Gillette’s
`
`corresponding petition is IPR2014-00992.
`
`The petitions for IPR filed by Petitioner are the same as the petitions filed by
`
`TSMC against the same patent claims, and are identical to the TSMC 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 filed by
`
`TSMC, subject to the same conditions sought by this motion. TSMC, Fujitsu, and
`
`Gillette do not oppose any of Petitioner’s motions while Zond declined to a take
`
`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 September 16, 2014 Order in IPR2014-01047, the Board articulated
`
`that Petitioner must file its revised motions for joinder within five business days.
`
`The order resulted from Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) reaching a settlement
`
`agreement with Zond and Intel’s subsequent withdrawal from its IPR petitions.
`
`Since Petitioner’s original motion for joinder sought joinder with the
`
`corresponding Intel IPR, Petitioner is required to file a revised motion for joinder
`
`with the TSMC IPR.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`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
`
`TSMC 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 TSMC 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
`
`TSMC does not oppose.
`
`a)
`Petitioner represents that the Joint IPR is identical to the TSMC IPR in all
`
`Substantively Identical Petitions
`
`substantive respects. It includes identical grounds, analysis, and exhibits and relies
`
`upon the same expert declarant and declaration. Accordingly, if instituted,
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`maintaining the Joint IPR proceeding separate from that of TSMC would entail
`
`needless duplication of effort.
`
`b)
`Because the grounds of unpatentability in the Joint IPR and TSMC IPR are
`
`Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`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 TSMC in a
`
`consolidated filing, subject to the ordinary rules for one party on page limits.
`
`TSMC 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 TSMC in the consolidated filings. These limitations
`
`avoid lengthy and duplicative briefing.
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Petitioner and TSMC
`
`are using the same expert declarant who has submitted the same, identical
`
`declaration in the two proceedings. Petitioner and TSMC 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 TSMC within the
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`timeframe normally allotted by the rules for one party. Petitioner and TSMC will
`
`not receive any separate cross-examination or redirect time.
`
`Petitioner will agree to the foregoing conditions regarding consolidated
`
`filings and discovery even in the event other IPRs filed by other, third-party
`
`petitioners are joined with the TSMC IPR.
`
`2.
`
`No New Grounds of Patentability
`
`The Joint IPR raises no new grounds of unpatentability from those of the
`
`TSMC 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 TSMC
`
`IPR is without consequence should the proceedings be joined. The trial schedule
`
`for the TSMC 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
`
`TSMC will engage in consolidated filings and discovery, which will simplify the
`
`briefing and discovery process.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`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 TSMC, Fujitsu, and Gillette do not oppose and Zond has declined
`
`to take a position:
`
`• If review is instituted on any ground in the TSMC IPR, the Joint IPR
`
`will be instituted and will be joined with the TSMC IPR on the same
`
`grounds. Grounds not instituted because the TSMC IPR failed to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, if any, will be similarly
`
`denied in the Joint IPR.
`
`• The scheduling order for the TSMC IPR will apply for the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`• Throughout the proceeding, TSMC 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, TSMC and Petitioner will identify each such filing as a
`
`Consolidated Filing and will be responsible for completing all
`
`consolidated filings.
`
`• TSMC 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 TSMC or Petitioner within the
`
`timeframe normally allotted by the rules for one party. TSMC and
`
`Petitioner will not receive any separate cross-examination or redirect
`
`time.
`
`• Zond will conduct any cross examination of any given witness jointly
`
`produced by TSMC 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 Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`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
`
`TSMC IPR proceedings.
`
`Respectfully submitted
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian M. Berliner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brian M. Berliner
`
`Reg. No. 34549
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 23, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`400 SOUTH HOPE STREET
`
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
`
`PHONE: (213) 430-6000
`
`EMAIL: bberliner@omm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Revised Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01071)
`
`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
`
`REVISED MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)” as described below:
`
`
`
`Date of service
`
`
`
`September 23, 2014
`
`Email: gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com;
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`PETITIONER’S REVISED 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Xin-Yi Zhou/
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`Reg. No. 63366
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`
`
`Documents served
`
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket