`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00209
`
`Patent 5,591,678
`_______________
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`678 PATENT BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 2
`
`III. RELEVANT RELATED MATTERS ............................................................. 3
`
`A. District Court Litigation ........................................................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`IPR 2015-01201 .................................................................................... 4
`
`IPR2016-00209 ..................................................................................... 4
`
`The Defendants Are Using the Second Petition to Frustrate
`the Litigation ......................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ........................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00581, Paper No. 8 (PTAB October 14, 2014) ..................................... 8
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`
`IPR2013-00324, Paper No. 19 (PTAB November 21, 2013) ............................ 7,9
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, ULC,
`
`IPR2015-00327, Paper No. 15 (PTAB September 2, 2015) .............................. 7,8
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Company,
`
`IPR2014-00506, Paper No. 17 (PTAB July 7, 2014) ........................................... 7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................. 7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (a) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`First page of Docket Control Order in 15-cv-341, August
`17, 2015
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and Disclosures
`Pursuant to Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4, October 2, 2015
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes
`Review, January 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Raytheon Company (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this Preliminary
`
`Response to the Petition seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678
`
`(“678 Patent”). This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. 42.107,
`
`because it is within three months of the November 24, 2015 date of the Notice
`
`granting the Petition a filing date. IPR2016-00209, at Paper 4, Notice of Filing
`
`Date, November 18, 2015.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board should deny inter partes
`
`review of the 678 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.108(a). In a different proceeding, the Board has already instituted inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-18 of the 678 patent – the same claims challenged in the present
`
`proceeding – based on six separate grounds. Petitioner has not adequately
`
`explained how the present Petition does not include substantially the same
`
`arguments as those contained in the IPR that is already pending. Rather a review of
`
`the petition shows it raises the same arguments that are being reviewed in the
`
`instituted IPR. The Petition in the present proceeding is part of a strategy to gain a
`
`tactical advantage in underlying litigation involving the same patent where Patent
`
`Owner accuses Petitioner and three other defendants of infringement.
`
`By filing this second petition over six months after the first, Petitioner has
`
`caused the Patent Owner to answer two IPR petitions and a motion to join them
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`while simultaneously briefing claim construction in district court. In addition, the
`
`Petitioner and the three other co-defendants are relying upon this redundant
`
`petition in seeking to stay the underlying litigation for an indeterminate time
`
`beyond the December 2016 final decision date already set for the instituted IPR.
`
`Patent Owner should not be subject to this serial petition strategy. Rather,
`
`given that Petitioner has failed to distinguish the teachings of the references relied
`
`on for the two petitions, and instead has combined with three other codefendants to
`
`misuse the IPR process in an attempt to gain a tactical advantage in the underlying
`
`litigation, Patent Owner respectfully requests the board exercise its discretion to
`
`deny this second petition.
`
`II.
`
`678 PATENT BACKGROUND
`
`The 678 Patent, titled “Process of Manufacturing a Microelectronic Device
`
`Using a Removable Support Substrate and Etch-Stop,” relates to a method for
`
`making a semiconductor developed by engineers at Hughes Corporation (later
`
`acquired by Raytheon). Ex. 1001.
`
`The inventors of the 678 Patent, working to improve semiconductors for
`
`navigation and national defense applications, realized that enabling access to the
`
`back side of a micro-circuit could improve the detection of radiation and light rays,
`
`and provide a foundation for stacking other micro-circuits. But gaining access to
`
`the back side without destroying the fragile and expensive thin micro-circuits was
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a problem. Their solution was to create a novel fabrication method that would
`
`transfer the thin and fragile micro-circuit and wafer from one support to another
`
`and then remove the back-side support through the use of an etch stop. Their
`
`patented method permits, inter alia, the fabrication of high resolution image
`
`sensors known as back-side illuminated sensors. Raytheon has used the invention
`
`in the 678 Patent to make high-resolution image sensors for defense and space
`
`applications. Many years after the invention, manufacturers of cameras,
`
`computers, and smart phones, in an effort to improve the resolution of cameras in
`
`their devices, began using sensors made by the inventive process claimed in the
`
`678 Patent.
`
`III. RELEVANT RELATED MATTERS
`A. District Court Litigation
`Patent Owner asserted the 678 Patent against Petitioner and several other
`
`defendants in Raytheon Company v. Sony Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-
`
`342, (E.D. Tex.) and Raytheon Company v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`
`C.A. No. 2-15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.) (collectively referred to as the “Litigation”).
`
`Both cases were filed March 6, 2015 and remain pending. Trial is scheduled to
`
`begin for the Litigation on September 6, 2016. Ex. 2001.
`
`The defendants in the Litigation, including Petitioner, are coordinating with
`
`respect to defenses, and submitted joint invalidity contentions asserting that the
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`678 Patent is invalid as anticipated and/or obvious in light of eighty (80) alleged
`
`prior art references. Ex. 2002. As explained more fully below, the defendants are
`
`now seeking to stay the Litigation pending inter partes review of the 678 Patent.
`
`Ex. 2003.
`
`B.
`
`IPR 2015-01201
`On May 14, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review of claims
`
`1-18 of the 678 Patent, alleging six separate grounds based on eleven different
`
`references. IPR2015-01201, Paper 2, at pp. 2, 36. All of the references relied on
`
`by Petitioner were cited in the joint invalidity contentions served in the Litigation.
`
`Compare Id. with Ex. 2002, at 7-11. On December 3, 2015, the Board instituted
`
`review of claims 1-18 based on six grounds and numerous references. IPR2015-
`
`01201 at Paper 6, at pp. 23-24 (referred to herein as the “1201 IPR”).
`
`C.
`
`IPR2016-00209
`
`Petitioner filed the Petition in the present proceeding on November 18, 2015,
`
`just over six months after filing the Petition in the 1201 IPR. IPR2016-00209,
`
`Paper 2 (referred to herein as the “0209 IPR”). The Petition alleges unpatentability
`
`of claims 1-18 of the 678 Patent based on eight grounds and seven references. Id.
`
`at pp. 2-3.
`
`While the Petition contains a vague assertion that the validity challenges are
`
`not redundant of those in the 1201 IPR, Petitioner gives no explanation as to any
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specific differences between the arguments advanced in the two petitions or
`
`between the teachings of the references supporting the validity challenges in the
`
`present Petition versus the references at issue in the 1201 IPR. IPR2016-00209, at
`
`Paper 2 at 1-2. To the contrary, Petitioner concedes that the present Petition
`
`involves “common issues” and several of the same references as the 1201 IPR.
`
`IPR2016-00209, at Paper 3, at 3, 5 (The 0209 Petition “raises eight grounds of
`
`unpatentability involving several of the same prior art references as IPR2015-
`
`01201.”) (emphasis added). Petitioner also concedes that the numerous grounds
`
`involve related arguments and overlapping prior art. Id. at 5 (“Although the
`
`petitions include many individual grounds, these grounds involve related
`
`arguments and overlapping prior art.”)
`
`Indeed, there is substantial overlap between the Petition and the arguments
`
`and evidence presented in the 1201 IPR. Just by way of example, asserted grounds
`
`2, 4, 5, and 6 of the 1201 IPR allege obviousness based on Morimoto in view of
`
`various secondary references, while asserted grounds 2-8 in the 0209 IPR allege
`
`obviousness based on Liu in view of secondary references, many of which are the
`
`same as the secondary references from the 1201 IPR. Compare IPR2015-01201,
`
`Paper 2, at 2, 36 with IPR2016-00209, Paper 2, at 3. The Petition, however,
`
`contains no explanation how the substance of its arguments for those grounds (or
`
`any other alleged grounds, for that matter) differ.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Defendants Are Using the Second Petition to Frustrate the
`Litigation
`
`The two petitions show that the IPR procedure is being used to gain a
`
`tactical advantage in the Litigation. Petitioner asserts that the Petition is based, in
`
`part, on a new prior art reference that was not known at the time of the filing.
`
`IPR2016-00209, at Paper 2 at 1-2. The Petition, however, provides no evidence
`
`supporting Petitioner’s claim that it did not previously know of the reference, no
`
`detail on when and how Petitioner learned of the reference,1 and no further
`
`explanation for why Petitioner waited several months to file the 0209 IPR.
`
`On January 4, 2016, the defendants in the underlying Litigation, which
`
`include Petitioner, moved to stay the Litigation pending resolution of the 1201 IPR
`
`and the 0209 IPR, if instituted. Ex. 2003, at p. 8. In support of the stay, defendants
`
`assert the Petitioner acted with dispatch in filing the 1201 IPR. Id., at 5. But,
`
`similar to this proceeding, defendants do not explain to the District Court why
`
`Petitioner waited several months to file the 0209 IPR. Further, in connection with
`
`the stay motion, while defendants offer to agree to an estoppel under 35 U.S.C.
`
`315(e)(2), defendants refuse to agree to an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1),
`
`1 Petitioner’s joinder motion contains an unsupported assertion that it
`
`learned of the reference in August or September of 2015. IPR2016-00209, at Paper
`
`3, at 4.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which means that defendants, including Petitioner, are keeping open the option of
`
`filing additional IPR petitions challenging the 678 patent. Ex. 2003, at pp. 7-8.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used its two IPR Petitions, filed many months apart, as
`
`leverage to obtain a stay of the Litigation, and has not agreed to refrain from filing
`
`additional IPR petitions.
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION
`The Board has discretion on whether to institute an IPR. See Intelligent Bio-
`
`Systems, Inc., v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., IPR2013-00324, Paper 19, at 4 (PTAB
`
`November 21, 2013) (“Congress made institution discretionary.”); see also 35
`
`U.S.C. §314(a). In determining whether to institute, the Board may deny
`
`institution on some or all grounds for unpatentability, and may deny institution for
`
`some or all challenged claims. Id. Further, the Board can reject a petition where
`
`the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented. Id. (citing
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d)).
`
`The Board has routinely denied petitions where the Petitioner has failed to
`
`establish that the arguments in a second petition are not substantially the same or
`
`cumulative to arguments made in a first petition. See, e.g., LG Electronics, Inc. v.
`
`ATI Technologies, ULC, IPR2015-00327, Paper 15, at 2-4 (PTAB September 2,
`
`2015); Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Company, IPR2014-00506, Paper 17, at
`
`6 (PTAB July 7, 2014); Intelligent Bio-Systems at 5-6. The Board has noted the
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`impropriety of allowing petitioners to present serial challenges against Patent
`
`Owners. See Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014-00581,
`
`Paper 8, at 13 (PTAB October 14, 2014) (“Allowing similar serial challenges to the
`
`same patent, by the same petitioner, risks harassment of patent owners and
`
`frustration of Congress’s intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`
`Act.”)
`
`As previously explained, the present Petition challenges the same claims of
`
`the 678 Patent as those that are already at issue in an IPR that was instituted on
`
`multiple grounds and numerous references. Petitioner made no effort to
`
`distinguish the teachings of the references relied on in the present Petition from
`
`those that support the grounds in the 1201 IPR. In addition, Petitioner concedes
`
`that the grounds of the present Petition involve related arguments and overlapping
`
`prior art to the 1201 IPR.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the present Petition is not redundant to the 1201 IPR
`
`merely because it is based on a different primary reference (Liu) than those relied
`
`upon in the 1201 IPR (Morimoto and Bertin). Paper 2, at 1-2. But Petitioner
`
`makes no attempt to distinguish the teachings of Liu from Morimoto or Bertin.
`
`Petitioner cannot establish that its challenges are not redundant simply by relying
`
`on a different primary reference. See, e.g., LG Electronics, Inc. at 2.
`
`(“Notwithstanding Petitioner’s application of different primary references, in view
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the overlapping arguments and our institution of inter partes review of the same
`
`claims in the Companion Case, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (a) and declined to institute against the same claims
`
`in this proceeding.”)
`
`In IPR2013-00324, the Board denied institution of a second IPR, where --
`
`like the scenario here -- the second Petition was based on a different primary
`
`reference (but some of the same secondary references) as a first IPR that had been
`
`instituted, and Petitioner had not adequately distinguished the primary reference of
`
`the second petition from those involved in the first IPR. Intelligent Bio-Systems at
`
`4-6. Specifically, the Board stated the following:
`
`Furthermore, we note that IBS [Petitioner] has not provided any
`justification for filing the instant petition, other than its representation
`that it became aware of the relevance of Odedra after the filing of the
`128 Petition. Pet. 2. IBS does not distinguish any teaching present
`in Odedra that is lacking from Ju, Tsien, or any of the other
`references cited in the 128 Petition. We therefore conclude that the
`128 Petition presented the same, or substantially the same, prior art
`and arguments to the Office as those in the instant petition.
`Id., at 6-7 (emphasis added).
`
`Similarly, in the present Petition, Petitioner represented that it learned of Liu
`
`after filing of 1201 IPR petition. Petitioner, however, made no effort to distinguish
`
`the teachings of Liu from Bertin, Morimoto, or any of the other many references
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cited in the petition in the 1201 IPR. Thus, as in IPR2013-00324, the Board should
`
`also deny the petition in this proceeding.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner’s second Petition is a strategic second bite at the apple that is
`
`intended to burden Patent Owner and/or lengthen a stay in the underlying
`
`Litigation. Even though filed six months after the 1201 IPR, Petitioner has not
`
`adequately distinguished the arguments or teachings in the references in the present
`
`petition from those already at issue in the 1201 IPR, in which all claims of the 678
`
`patent are under review on multiple grounds. Accordingly, the Board should deny
`
`institution of the present Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Thomas J. Filarski Reg No 31612/
`Thomas J. Filarski
`Reg. No. 31,612
`tfilarski@steptoe.com
`John L. Abramic
`Reg. No. 51,031
`jabramic@steptoe.com
`Brian Fahrenbach
`Reg. No. 72,603
`bfahrenbach@steptoe.com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
`115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: 312-577-1300
`Facsimile: 312-577-1370
`
`Counsel for Raytheon Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number: 27890
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`115 S. LaSalle St.
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 577-1252
`Facsimile: (312) 577-1370
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,591,678, was served in its entirety on
`
`January 22, 2016 by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing
`
`System as well as by delivering a copy via electronic email to the attorneys of
`
`record for the Patent Owner’s as follows:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Zhuanjia Gu
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`702 Marshall St., Ste. 640
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`gu@turnerboyd.com
`
` Robert Hails
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`rhails@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`By:
`
`/Thomas J. Filarski, Reg No. 31612/
`Thomas J. Filarski
`Registration No. 31,612
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`115 S. LaSalle St.
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: 312-577-1252
`Facsimile:
`312-577-1370
`
`Counsel for Raytheon Company
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 22, 2016