`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`and
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00289
`Case IPR2016-01313
`Patent 5,965,924
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00289 & IPR2016-01313
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,965,924
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On June 8, 2016, the Board instituted trial with respect to claims 1-6, 13, 14,
`
`
`
`and 16 of the U.S. Patent No. 5,965,924 (“the ‘924 Patent”) owned by DSS
`
`Technology Management, Inc., (“Patent Owner”). Patent Owner submits this
`
`Response to the grounds for invalidity on the bases of which the Board instituted
`
`this trial.
`
`
`
`II. THE BURDEN REMAINS WITH PETITIONERS
`
`
`
`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
`
`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, Petitioners must prove by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘924 Patent are unpatentable. Patent
`
`Owner defers to the Board to make this determination based on its impartial analysis
`
`of the prior art and Petitioners’ arguments.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00289 & IPR2016-01313
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,965,924
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 7, 2016
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00289 & IPR2016-01313
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,965,924
`
`
`
`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
`
`September 7 2016, in its entirety upon the following:
`
`Grant Rowan
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`grant.rowan@wilmerhale.com
`yung-hoon.ha@wilmerhale.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: September 7, 2016