`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 18
` Entered: 9 November 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC., MICRO-
`STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD, MSI COMPUTER CORP.,
`GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and G.B.T., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KINGLITE HOLDINGS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`____________
`
`ERRATA
`
`Paper 16, entitled Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`,
`– 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, contained an error. The heading which begins on
`
`,
`Page 2 indicated the paper was a draft. The paper, in fact, was the final
`
`decision and should be treated as such. Please see the attached page.
`
`/Amy Kattula/
`Paralegal Specialist
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01094
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Vivek Ganti
`vg@hkw-law.com
`
`Gregory Ourada
`go@hkw-law.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01094 DRAFT
`Patent 6,401,202 B1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`American Megatrends, Inc., Micro-Star International Co., Ltd, MSI
`
`Computer Corp., Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd., and G.B.T., Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 9, “Pet.”) to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claim 1–40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,401,202
`
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’202 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Patent
`
`Owner, Kinglite Holdings Inc., filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition.
`
`(Paper 15, “Prelim. Resp.”.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Section 314(a) 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.” After
`
`considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and associated evidence,
`
`we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in showing unpatentability of the claims 1, 9–11, 19–21, 29–
`
`31, 39, and 40.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties state that the ’202 patent has been asserted in Kinglite
`
`Holdings Inc. v. Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-04989
`
`(C.D. Cal.), and Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star International Co Ltd.,
`
`Case No. 1:14-cv-03009 (C.D. Cal.). Pet. 4–5; Paper 11, 1.
`
`B. The ʼ202 Patent
`
`The ’202 patent discloses “a method and apparatus to perform
`
`multitasking in a basic input and output system (BIOS).” Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract. “Interrupt signals are enabled at predetermined interrupt times”
`
`such that “[a] first task is performed in response to the interrupt signals at
`
`2