`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`
`SK HYNIX INC., SK HYNIX AMERICA INC.,
`SK HYNIX MEMORY SOLUTIONS INC., and
`HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00192
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552
`
`
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00192
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On May 11, 2016, the Board instituted trial with respect to claims 1-10 of the
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 (“the ‘552 Patent”) owned by DSS Technology
`
`Management, Inc., (“Patent Owner”). Patent Owner submits this Response in
`
`response to the ground for invalidity on the bases of which the Board instituted this
`
`trial.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
`
`Petitioners and Patent Owner are engaged in ongoing settlement negotiations.
`
`To avoid unnecessary burden on Petitioner and the Board, the Patent Owner has
`
`foregone deposition of Petitioner’s expert witness and is not submitting substantive
`
`arguments against grounds for invalidity asserted against the ‘552 Patent.
`
`
`
`III. THE BURDEN REMAINS WITH PETITIONER
`
`
`
`It is well-established that “because of the ‘significant difference’ between the
`
`standards of proof at institution and trial during an IPR, it is inappropriate to shift
`
`the burden to the patentee after institution to prove that the patent is patentable.” In
`
`Re: Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., No. 2015-1300 at 17 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Therefore, “the petitioner continues to bear the burden of proving unpatentability
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00192
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552
`
`
`
`after institution, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence at trial.” Id. at
`
`18 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). Thus, Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that claims 1-10 of the ‘552 Patent are unpatentable. Patent Owner defers
`
`to the Board to make this determination based on its impartial analysis of the prior
`
`art and Petitioner’s arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/andriy lytvyn/
`Andriy Lytvyn (Reg. No. 65,166)
`Anton J. Hopen (Reg. No. 41,849)
`Nicholas Pfeifer (Reg. No. 70,568)
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`SMITH & HOPEN, P.A.
`180 Pine Avenue North
`Oldsmar, FL 34677
`(813) 925-8505
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00192
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(e), the above Patent Owner’s Response was served via electronic mail on
`
`August 11, 2016, in its entirety upon the following:
`
`
`
`Heath J. Briggs, Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`briggsh@gtlaw.com
`HynixGTIPR@gtlaw.com
`
`Patrick J. McCarthy, Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`HynixGTIPR@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/andriy lytvyn/
`Andriy Lytvyn
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 65,166
`
`SMITH & HOPEN, P.A.
`180 Pine Avenue North
`Oldsmar, FL 34677
`(813) 925-8505
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`
`Date: August 11, 2016