throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`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

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