`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-01494
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,896,775
`CLAIMS 1-29
`Title: High-power pulsed magnetically enhanced plasma processing
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`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 (IPR2014-01494)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Limited, TSMC North
`
`America Corp., Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, and Fujitsu Semiconductor
`
`America, Inc., (collectively “Petitioner” or “TSMC and Fujitsu”) submit the
`
`present Motion for Joinder pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), authorizing the filing
`
`of a “motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any
`
`inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”1 Petitioner submits that the
`
`present Motion for Joinder is timely filed since the inter partes review proceeding
`
`for which joinder is requested has not yet been instituted.
`
`Petitioner hereby moves for joinder of the present petition for inter partes
`
`review IPR2014-01494 (the “TSMC/FUJITSU IPR”) with IPR2014-00578 (the
`
`“GILLETTE
`
`IPR”),
`
`filed by
`
`the Gillette Company
`
`(“Gillette”). The
`
`TSMC/FUJITSU IPR is identical to the GILLETTE IPR in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits to the GILLETTE IPR, and relies upon the same expert
`
`declarant as the GILLETTE IPR. Gillette does not oppose this motion.
`
`
`1In its May 29, 2014 Order (Paper 5) of related proceedings IPR2014-00781 and
`
`IPR2014-00782, the Board articulated that prior authorization for filing a motion
`
`for joinder is not required if sought prior to one month after the institution date of
`
`any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The TSMC/FUJITSU IPR and the GILLETTE IPR are among a family of
`
`inter partes review proceedings relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,896,773 and
`
`6,896,775 that are being asserted by Zond, LLC (“Zond”) against numerous
`
`defendants: 1:14-cv-12438-WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited et al);
`
`1:14-cv-00721-LPS (TSMC Technology Inc. et al v. Zond LLC.); and 1:13-cv-
`
`11567-DJC (Zond, Inc. v. Gillette Company, the et al.).
`
`In particular, a complaint in 1:14-cv-12438-WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu
`
`Semiconductor Limited et al) was first served on June 10, 2014, and a complaint in
`
`1:14-cv-00721-LPS (TSMC Technology Inc. et al v. Zond LLC.) was first served on
`
`June 6, 2014. Accordingly, all petitions for inter partes review that have been filed
`
`by Petitioner TSMC and Fujitsu are timely as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`
`
`Currently, the family of inter partes review proceedings relating to the
`
`above identified Zond patents (the “Zond IPRs”) consists of the following
`
`proceedings that involve TSMC, Fujitsu, and Gillette:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`In addition to the present Motion for Joinder, Petitioner is presently filing
`
`Motions for Joinder of other Zond IPR petitions with the corresponding petitions
`
`filed by Gillette, subject to the same conditions sought by this motion. Gillette
`
`does not oppose the motions.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests
`
`that
`
`the Board exercise
`
`its discretion
`
`to grant
`
`joinder of
`
`the
`
`TSMC/FUJITSU IPR and GILLETTE 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 TSMC/FUJITSU IPR is
`
`substantively identical to the corresponding GILLETTE 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. As discussed below,
`
`Petitioner will agree to consolidated filings and discovery, and procedural
`
`concessions, which Gillette does not oppose and which do not prejudice Zond.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`a. Substantively Identical Petitions
`
`Petitioner represents that the TSMC/FUJITSU IPR is identical to the
`
`GILLETTE IPR in all substantive respects. It includes identical grounds, analysis,
`
`and exhibits and relies upon the same expert declarant and declaration as the
`
`GILLETTE IPR. Accordingly, if instituted, maintaining the TSMC/FUJITSU IPR
`
`proceeding separate from that of the GILLETTE IPR would entail needless
`
`duplication of effort.
`
`b. Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`Because the grounds of unpatentability in the TSMC/FUJITSU IPR and
`
`GILLETTE 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 Gillette in a consolidated filing, subject to the ordinary rules for one party on
`
`page limits. Gillette and Petitioner will be jointly responsible for the consolidated
`
`filings.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`Petitioner agrees not to be permitted any arguments separate from those
`
`advanced by Petitioner and Gillette in the consolidated filings. These limitations
`
`avoid lengthy and duplicative briefing.
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Petitioner and Gillette
`
`are using the same expert declarant who has submitted the same, identical
`
`declaration in the two proceedings. Petitioner and Gillette 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 Gillette within the
`
`time frame normally allotted by the rules for one party. Petitioner and Gillette 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 GILLETTE IPR.
`
`2. No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The TSMC/FUJITSU IPR raises no new grounds of unpatentability from
`
`those of the GILLETTE IPR because, in fact, the petitions are identical.
`
`3. No Impact on IPR Trial Schedule
`
`The small difference between the filing date of the TSMC/FUJITSU IPR and
`
`the GILLETTE IPR is without consequence should the proceedings be joined. The
`
`trial schedule for the GILLETTE IPR would not need to be delayed to effect
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`joinder based on Zond’s preliminary response and the later-filed TSMC/FUJITSU
`
`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
`
`Gillette 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes a joinder order for consideration by the Board as
`
`follows, which Gillette does not oppose:
`
`• If review is instituted on any ground in the GILLETTE IPR, the
`
`TSMC/FUJITSU IPR will be instituted and will be joined with the
`
`GILLETTE IPR on the same grounds. Grounds not instituted because
`
`the GILLETTE IPR failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing, if any, will be similarly denied in the TSMC/FUJITSU
`
`IPR.
`
`• The scheduling order for the GILLETTE IPR will apply for the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`• Throughout the proceeding, Gillette and TSMC and Fujitsu 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 merged proceeding, Gillette and TSMC and Fujitsu will identify
`
`each such filing as a Consolidated Filing and will be responsible for
`
`completing all consolidated filings.
`
`• Gillette and TSMC and Fujitsu will designate an attorney to conduct
`
`the cross examination of any given witness produced by Zond and the
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`redirect of any given witness produced by Gillette or TSMC and
`
`Fujitsu within the time frame normally allotted by the rules for one
`
`party. Gillette and TSMC and Fujitsu will not receive any separate
`
`cross-examination or redirect time.
`
`• Zond will conduct any cross examination of any given witness jointly
`
`produced by Gillette or TSMC and Fujitsu and the redirect of any
`
`given witness produced by Zond within the time frame normally
`
`allotted by
`
`the rules for one cross-examination or redirect
`
`examination.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
` For the foregoing reasons, if the Director institutes inter partes review,
`
`Petitioner TSMC and Fujitsu respectfully requests that the Board grant joinder of
`
`the TSMC/FUJITSU IPR and GILLETTE IPR proceedings.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: September 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David M. O’Dell/
`David M. O’Dell
`Registration No. 42,044
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP.
`2323 VICTORY AVENUE SUITE 700
`DALLAS TEXAS 75219
`TEL: (972) 739-8635
`FAX: (214) 200-0853
`EMAIL: david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2014-01494)
`
`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 September 24, 2014
`
`Manner of service Email: gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com;
`bbarker@chsblaw.com; kurt@rauschenbach.com
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`Persons Served 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
`
`
`
`
`/David M. O’Dell/
`David M. O’Dell
`Registration No. 42,044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`