`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`——————————
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————————
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`——————————
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the reasons in Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude and below, the Board
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`should exclude each of the following Patent Owner Exhibits.
`
`I. Exhibit 2002
`The attorney comments from Ding’s file history (Exhibit 2002) are irrelevant
`
`because they were not available to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) as
`
`of the ’324 patent’s effective filing date. Ding’s prior-art status under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) only extends to Ding’s disclosure and not its file history. See
`
`M.P.E.P. 2136.02(II). The cases Patent Owner cites address circumstances where
`
`references dated after a patent’s priority date can show a POSITA’s knowledge
`
`about general understanding of facts related to the state of the art, but they do not
`
`permit ascribing to a POSITA knowledge of attorney comments about a narrow
`
`concept in a prior-art patent that was kept secret in the Patent and Trademark
`
`Office. Since Ding’s prosecution history was not publicly accessible until well after
`
`the 1999 effective filing date of the ’324 patent (i.e., when the Ding patent issued
`
`in 2005), these statements would not have been available to a POSITA at the
`
`relevant time, so the Board should exclude Exhibit 2002. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`II. Exhibits 2003 and 2004
`Patent Owner never demonstrates how online dictionaries from 2016
`
`(Exhibits 2003 and 2004) would indicate the knowledge of a POSITA in 1999.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a claim term is to be
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`construed at the time of the invention). The Board must construe claims in a
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`“temporal context” at the time of the invention. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive
`
`Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (refusing to consider
`
`dictionary and treatise from “unrelated and non-contemporaneous [online]
`
`authorities…dated well after the [patent-in-suit]” in its de novo claim construction
`
`analysis). Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-01031, Paper 41
`
`(Dec. 7, 2015) did not address “Intellectual Ventures’s temporal concern,” as Patent
`
`Owner asserts, but only whether the online dictionary was irrelevant or hearsay.
`
`Patent Owner submitted replacement definitions (Exhibits 2008 and 2009)
`
`from dictionaries contemporaneous with the ’324 patent, yet for some unknown
`
`reason refuses to withdraw Exhibits 2003 and 2004. These exhibits are
`
`cumulative, and the Board should exclude them. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Exhibits 2016, 2017, 2022-2027, 2034, and 2035
`
`III.
`The MultiLing translator affidavits in Exhibits 2017, 2023, 2025, 2027, and
`
`2035 fail to set forth “that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge
`
`are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be
`
`true” as 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 required. Patent Owner does not disagree or offer any
`
`statements in these affidavits to satisfy this requirement. See Paper 36, at 5.
`
`The MultiLing affidavits also fail to provide any evidence the affiant, Mr.
`
`Degn (a sales and marketing professional) had personal knowledge or could testify
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`to the statements in the affidavits. Affidavits must be made on personal knowledge
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`and show the affiant is competent to testify to matters in those documents. See
`
`Townsend Eng’g Co. v. Hitec Co., 1986 WL 13708 (N.D. Ill. 1986), aff'd 829 F.2d
`
`1086 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (striking translations because the translator affidavit failed to
`
`set forth affiant’s qualifications, and its statement regarding the translations’
`
`accuracy was insufficient because the affidavit was not based on his personal
`
`knowledge and did not establish his qualifications). The MultiLing affidavits have
`
`no information about the translators, their qualifications, or how they prepared the
`
`translations. Nor do the MultiLing affidavits explain the verification of the
`
`translations, so the affidavits do not properly certify the corresponding translations.
`
`The Board should exclude the affidavits (Exhibits 2017, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2035)
`
`and their corresponding translations (Exhibits 2016, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2034).
`
`Paragraph 83 (d-n, v, w) in Exhibit 2037
`
`IV.
`Although Patent Owner avers Dr. Harris’s declaration (Ex. 2037) is based
`
`entirely on sufficient facts and data, Patent Owner neglected to address the portions
`
`Petitioner seeks to exclude, Paragraph 83 sub-parts d-n, v, and w. In those portions,
`
`Dr. Harris opined whether Exhibits 2014-2027, 2030-2035, 2039, and 2040
`
`invalidate the Substitute Claims, but his opinions lack any supporting analysis,
`
`especially in view of the fact the invalidity report (Exhibit 2047) Patent Owner
`
`filed with its opposition maps certain references to the claims.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`For example, Exhibit 2047 shows Patent Owner knew that defendants in that
`
`related lawsuit Patent Owner brought, asserted Nogami as anticipating claims 1, 3,
`
`5, 7 and 9 of the ’324 patent. Those defendants mapped Nogami’s top layer 16 to a
`
`“first film consist[ing] essentially of a mixture of crystalline or polycrystalline
`
`metal with nitrogen throughout.” Ex. 2047, 36, 40-42 (emphasis added). Substitute
`
`Claims 11-13 seek to add the “throughout” limitation Patent Owner knew Nogami
`
`disclosed, but Dr. Harris provided no facts or analysis in Paragraph 83, sub-part v
`
`of Exhibit 2037 to distinguish Nogami alone or in view of Zhang and Ding.
`
`Because Dr. Harris’s opinions on Exhibits 2014-2027, 2030-2035, 2039, and
`
`2040 are not based on substantial facts or data, the Board should exclude
`
`Paragraph 83, sub-parts d-n, v, and w in Exhibit 2037, which are the only
`
`paragraphs addressing these exhibits, under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Rule 42.65(a).
`
`V. Exhibits 2045 (redacted) and 2047 (unredacted)
`Exhibit 2045, an invalidity expert report from a related district court
`
`litigation, is irrelevant because it has no bearing on Patent Owner’s duty to
`
`distinguish the Substitute Claims from all prior art known to the Patent Owner.
`
`Patent Owner contends the invalidity expert report shows “ Exhibits 1025-
`
`1031 were not relied on in the expert report, evidencing that they are not material,”
`
`but this is not the proper standard for determining materiality. For one, the claims
`
`addressed in that report are not the same as the proposed Substitute Claims. Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Owner also argues “whether Dr. Mack reviewed Exhibits 1025-1031… is of no
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`consequence” (Paper 36, at 10), but that is disingenuous. If Dr. Mack did not even
`
`review Exhibits 1025-1031, he could not have formed an opinion on the materiality
`
`of those references. If so, Exhibit 2045 (and its unredacted version, Exhibit 2047)1
`
`is irrelevant to the materiality of Exhibits 1025-1031. And, Shinn Fu Co. of Am.,
`
`Inc. v. Tire Hanger Corp., No. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2017) (non-
`
`precedential), which Patent Owner cites, is inapposite. It only addresses the
`
`Board’s duties to address arguments presented by the parties, not Patent Owner’s
`
`duty of candor to disclose material, known prior art with its Motion to Amend.
`
`The Board should exclude Exhibits 2045 and 2047 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 2, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / E. Robert Yoches /
`E. Robert Yoches, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 30,120
`
`
`1 If Patent Owner’s position is only prior art addressed in Dr. Mack’s report is
`
`material, then there are at least three other prior-art combinations based on Hogan,
`
`Chiang, or Min from his report that were not addressed in the Motion to Amend.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner has failed its duty of candor and failed to address all prior art
`
`known to it even under its standard of materiality.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE was served on August
`
`2, 2017, via electronic mail directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at:
`
`Michael J. Fink (Reg. No. 31,827)
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Neil F. Greenblum (Reg. No. 28,394)
`ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`
`Arnold Turk (Reg. No. 33,094)
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`
`
`Patent Owner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`Dated: August 2, 2017
`
`
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`
`