`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-013771
`
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`BRUCE W. SMITH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`1 GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s motion for joinder in IPR2017-00922 was granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides the following responses to Patent Owner’s observations
`
`on the cross-examination testimony of Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D. (Paper 34).
`
`Response to Observation No. 1:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the guise of a statement of relevance, Patent Owner
`
`argues Petitioner and Dr. Smith are attempting “to rewrite the Japanese
`
`Application’s express disclosures.” Paper 34, at 1–2. That explanation has nothing
`
`to do with relevance. Dr. Smith’s testimony referenced here and in Observation No.
`
`1 is relevant, not for the reasons Patent Owner advances, but because that testimony
`
`is consistent with the statement in the Japanese ’371 application that “the second
`
`silicon dioxide film 355 and the organic film 354 are sequentially dry-etched using
`
`the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” EX1014, at ¶0093; see also EX1050, at
`
`¶¶29–36. Observation No. 1 also references incomplete testimony. Dr. Smith was
`
`asked, “So it’s your testimony that the second resist pattern 359 is removed during
`
`etching of the organic film 354?” EX2040, at 15:4–6. Dr. Smith responded,
`
`Well, it doesn’t say it’s fully removed. It’s a statement
`
`that says that 359 is removed during that step. That layer
`
`359 would need to remain at least partially, some of that
`
`material, until all of 354 is etched through, becomes
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`354A. And then as the Figure 16B shows, to remove
`
`resist pattern 359A [sic], one would continue the etch
`
`process through the organic film 354. Which would then
`
`completely remove 359.
`
`Id. at 15:7–15.
`
`Response to Observation No. 2:
`
`As Observation No. 2 notes, Dr. Smith was asked, “Is film 354A being used
`
`as a mask in etching film 353?” Dr. Smith responded, “It says that in the
`
`specification, but 354A is not -- would not be part of the mask that would be
`
`etching 353.” EX2040, at 18:3–7. Dr. Smith was also asked, “Does layer 354
`
`become a mask during this process, after layer 355 is completely removed?” Dr.
`
`Smith responded (after a form objection from Mr. Davis) that “354, once 355A is
`
`removed -- and 354 being the organic film, or an organic film -- would then be
`
`masking 353.” EX2040, at 59:20–60:3. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`supports Petitioner’s argument that layer 354A does not act as a mask until it is
`
`exposed (Paper 26, at 13–14), and supports the Board’s construction finding that “a
`
`layer positioned between an overlying layer and the layer being etched” can act as a
`
`mask “in an instance where the overlying layer is also removed during the etching,
`
`and thus, the between layer acts to shield the layer being etched during etching.”
`
`Paper 11, at 18, n.7. It does not contradict Petitioner’s arguments or the Board’s
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`construction, as Patent Owner incorrectly suggests. Dr. Smith’s testimony also
`
`highlights the internally inconsistent usage of the term “mask” in the specification
`
`of the ’696 patent, as Dr. Smith explained in his declaration. EX1050, at ¶¶20–28.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion (Paper 34, at 2–3), Dr. Smith’s testimony
`
`cited in Observation No. 2 (EX2040, at 16:1–17:20) is irrelevant to the process for
`
`transitioning between Figures 16(c) and 16(d). Dr. Smith’s testimony relates to
`
`transitioning between Figures 16(b) and 16(c), not between Figures 16(c) and 16(d).
`
`EX2040, at 16:16–18:7.
`
`Response to Observation No. 3:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit, and because it extends nearly two pages, not a short
`
`paragraph as permitted under the rules. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,767-68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner argues that Dr. Smith’s testimony at
`
`EX2040, at 18:13–20:20, is relevant to “whether a buried layer that has a lateral
`
`edge ‘in line and flush with [a lateral] edge of’ an overlying layer can act as a
`
`mask.” Paper 34, at 3. Dr. Smith’s testimony is not relevant to this issue. Nowhere
`
`in this passage was Dr. Smith asked about, nor did he testify about buried layers,
`
`lateral edges, or in line and flush edges with an overlying layer. Dr. Smith’s
`
`testimony in the cited passage relates to the internally inconsistent treatment of
`
`masks by the specification of the ’696 patent, as Dr. Smith has extensively opined.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`EX1050, at ¶¶20–28. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Dr. Smith’s testimony
`
`in this passage about layer 505A from Figs. 23(b) and 23(c) of the ’696 patent are
`
`irrelevant to layers 355 and 358 from the Japanese ’371 application. Patent Owner
`
`did not ask Dr. Smith about those layers in the cited excerpt. Figures 23(b) and
`
`23(c) do not even appear in the Japanese ’371 application. Dr. Smith’s testimony in
`
`Observation No. 3 is consistent with, and supports, the Board’s construction finding
`
`that “a layer positioned between an overlying layer and the layer being etched” can
`
`act as a mask “where the overlying layer is also removed during the etching, and
`
`thus, the between layer acts to shield the layer being etched during etching” (Paper
`
`11, at 18, n.7), because Dr. Smith explained layer 505A acts as a mask until layer
`
`504A is exposed.
`
`Response to Observation No. 4:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Dr. Smith’s testimony
`
`at EX2040, at 20:21–22:1, about layer 605A from Figs. 32(a) and 32(b) of the ’696
`
`patent is not relevant to different layers 355 and 358 from the Japanese ’371
`
`application, about which Dr. Smith was not asked in the cited passage. Patent
`
`Owner mischaracterizes and misquotes Dr. Smith’s testimony when it writes,
`
`“605A will act to mask etching until the film [603] is removed.” Paper 34, at 5
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`(emphasis added). The proper quotation is, “605A will act to mask etching until
`
`that film is removed,” and “that film” refers to layer 605A, not layer 603. EX2040,
`
`at 21:20–22:1. Dr. Smith’s opinion about such layers has been consistent from the
`
`beginning. See, e.g., EX1002, at ¶¶110–15. Figures 32(a) and 32(b) do not even
`
`appear in the Japanese ’371 application. Dr. Smith’s testimony cited in Observation
`
`No. 4 is consistent with, and supports, the Board’s construction finding that “a layer
`
`positioned between an overlying layer and the layer being etched” can act as a mask
`
`“in an instance where the overlying layer is also removed during the etching, and
`
`thus, the between layer acts to shield the layer being etched during etching” (Paper
`
`11, at 18, n.7), because he explained layer 605A acts as a mask until layer 604A is
`
`exposed.
`
`Response to Observation No. 5:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner argues Dr. Smith’s testimony at EX2040, at
`
`27:13–33:12, contradicts his opinions provided regarding whether vertical sidewalls
`
`have a role in masking. Paper 34, at 5–7. The testimony cited does not support
`
`Patent Owner’s argument or lead to its conclusion, as nowhere in the cited passage
`
`was Dr. Smith asked whether vertical sidewalls have a role in masking. Patent
`
`Owner also improperly re-argues here that “vertical sidewalls block lateral removal
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`and lateral flow of etchant.” Id. at 7. None of the cited testimony supports this
`
`argument, as Dr. Smith was never asked about, nor did he ever testify about any
`
`function of a vertical sidewall in an etching process. Patent Owner was asking about
`
`RIE in the abstract, not about any processes at issue in these proceedings or even
`
`dual damascene processes. In that regard, Dr. Smith testified, “The desired attribute
`
`of a multi-layer process like dual-damascene and the requirements for such a
`
`process to operate is the side wall angle needs to be vertical.” EX2040, at 23:11–14.
`
`He also stated that “[w]ithin the capability of measurement or within the
`
`requirements of manufacturing,” dry etches can provide “perfectly vertical
`
`sidewalls.” EX2040, at 22:6–10.
`
`Response to Observation No. 6:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner argues Dr. Smith made a concession at EX2040,
`
`at 33:13–38:9, whether vertical sidewalls block lateral removal and lateral flow of
`
`etchant. Paper 34, at 8. The testimony cited does not support Patent Owner’s
`
`argument or lead to its conclusion, as nowhere in the cited passage was Dr. Smith
`
`asked about vertical sidewalls or whether they have any role in blocking lateral
`
`removal or lateral flow of etchant. Patent Owner was asking about RIE in the
`
`abstract, not about any processes at issue in these proceedings or even dual
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`damascene processes. In that regard, Dr. Smith testified, “The desired attribute of a
`
`multi-layer process like dual-damascene and the requirements for such a process to
`
`operate is the side wall angle needs to be vertical.” EX2040, at 23:11–14. He also
`
`stated, “Within the capability of measurement or within the requirements of
`
`manufacturing,” dry etches can provide “perfectly vertical sidewalls.” EX2040, at
`
`22:6–10.
`
`Response to Observation No. 7:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner argues Dr. Smith’s testimony (EX2040, at
`
`40:13–50:3) “contradicts and is inconsistent with [his] earlier opinion . . . that
`
`‘while concurrently removing’ covers a case where the photoresist layer is not
`
`completely removed as an underlying film is etched.” Paper 34, at 8 (quoting
`
`EX1050, at ¶46 n.1). Dr. Smith’s testimony directly supports his opinion. The
`
`testimony in Observation No. 7 is incomplete and misleading. In full, the exchange
`
`states the opposite of what Patent Owner suggests:
`
`
`
`Q What is the difference between concurrently and partially
`
`concurrently?
`
`
`
`A
`
`In the case of partially concurrently, since the etching is
`
`being done in two layers, the first dielectric and the second dielectric,
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`simply -- that simply said, concurrently, it wouldn't cover the
`
`situation where one layer is removed before another layer is
`
`completely removed.
`
`Q Okay.
`
`A
`
`If in the first instance there is a situation where not -- for
`
`instance, not all the photoresist is gone during the concurrent
`
`removal, one would know that an overetch would strip the
`
`photoresist. So I don’t think “partially concurrently” is appropriate
`
`in the first instance.
`
`EX2040, at 44:16–45:6 (emphasis added). Dr. Smith explained several times that
`
`“transferring [a pattern into a dielectric layer]. . . while concurrently removing [a
`
`layer of photoresist]” (EX1005, at 13:47–50) means the photoresist is also being
`
`etched during the entire period of time the pattern is being etched into the dielectric.
`
`See EX2040, at 45:1–6, 46:4–48:5. He stated, “I think concurrent is appropriate,
`
`since it’s talking about an etch step and a [concurrent] removal step,” not mutually
`
`concurrent dielectric patterning and photoresist removal steps. EX2040, at 46:8–
`
`47:1. In other words, dielectric patterning must be completed before the photoresist
`
`removal is completed. He contrasted this with “transferring, at least partially
`
`concurrently, [one dielectric] layer . . . and [another dielectric] layer” (EX1005, at
`
`13:54–58), because “[t]here are two . . . transfer processes [that] are occurring
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`concurrently. But since they may not take the same time to complete, they would
`
`only be partially concurrent.” EX2040, at 45:11–19. The “partially concurrent”
`
`transfer step allows for either layer to finish being patterned before the other,
`
`whereas the “concurrent” removal of the photoresist does not allow for the
`
`photoresist mask to be completely removed before dielectric layer is done being
`
`etched. Dr. Smith’s testimony cited in Observation No. 7 thus supports his opinion
`
`that the Grill provisional supports Grill’s claim 28.
`
`Response to Observation No. 8:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner argues Grill is not entitled to an earlier effective
`
`prior-art date based on the same incomplete and misleading quotation it presented
`
`in Observation No. 7 (discussed above). Patent Owner’s analysis of these
`
`misleading and incomplete statements is improper for a motion for observations,
`
`and premised on a failure to understand the difference between the phrase
`
`“transferring . . . while concurrently removing” and the phrase “transferring, at least
`
`partially concurrently, [one] layer . . . and [another] layer” (also discussed above).
`
`EX1005, at 13:47–50, 13:54–57.
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`Response to Observation No. 9:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner argues Dr. Smith’s testimony (EX2040, at
`
`43:13–50:5) “is inconsistent with [his] previous opinions in EX1050, at ¶36, that an
`
`‘overetch’ technique is used to remove resist pattern 359” and “inconsistent with
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that the ‘overetch’ technique is used to remove resist pattern
`
`359.” Paper 34, at 10–11. To begin, Dr. Smith’s testimony is the opposite of what
`
`Patent Owner claims. Dr. Smith testified, “That photoresist would be removed
`
`through the continuation of that step until all the photoresist is gone, and overetch
`
`would occur.” EX2040, at 48:2–5; see also id. at 45:1–6, 46:14–48:5. In addition,
`
`Dr. Smith’s testimony in Observation No. 9 is about claim 28 of the Grill reference.
`
`EX2040, at 43:13–50:5. It is not about resist pattern 359 of the ’696 patent or
`
`Japanese ’371 application, and is thus irrelevant for Patent Owner’s purposes.
`
`Response to Observation No. 10:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit, and because by extending nearly two pages, it is not a
`
`short paragraph as the rules permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,767-68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner argues “Dr. Smith’s understanding of the
`
`term ‘substantially overlap’ includes situations where the feature (i.e., opening) of
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`underlying via pattern shares the exact same feature (i.e., opening) of an overlying
`
`wire pattern, thereby eliminating the distinction between the via pattern and the
`
`wire pattern.” Paper 34, at 12. Rather than make observations about Dr. Smith’s
`
`cross-examination testimony, Observation No. 10 focuses solely on his declaration,
`
`which states, “the via pattern substantially (even completely) overlaps the wiring
`
`pattern.” EX1050, at ¶57. The statement means only that the entire via pattern
`
`overlaps part of the wiring pattern, not that all of the wiring pattern completely
`
`overlaps the via pattern. The testimony in Observation No. 10 merely states that
`
`“the dual relief pattern collectively refers to the openings in the blue layer, that’s a
`
`wiring pattern, and a green layer, a via pattern.” EX2040, at 50:20–51:1. Dr. Smith
`
`nowhere suggests the wiring and via patterns would be identical patterns, which, as
`
`Patent Owner observes, would be “nonsensical.” Paper 34, at 12.
`
`Response to Observation No. 11:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the guise of a statement of relevance, Patent Owner
`
`improperly mischaracterizes Dr. Smith’s prior opinion, and argues his cross-
`
`examination testimony contradicts it. Dr. Smith never opined that “no such cross-
`
`sections proposed by Patent Owner in the preliminary response could exist.” Paper
`
`34, at 13. He stated only that any such patterns would involve “obscure, restrictive,
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`and difficult-to-imagine circuit layouts with complex and unnecessary shapes.”
`
`EX1050, at ¶26. Dr. Smith’s testimony (EX2040, at 52:2–53:6), referenced here
`
`and in Observation No. 11, follows his position that the cross-sections illustrated in
`
`the ’696 patent are not uniform throughout. See, e.g., EX2040, at 53:2–6; EX1002,
`
`at ¶258. The conclusion IPB seeks to draw from Dr. Smith’s deposition testimony
`
`(i.e., that the ’696 patent illustrates layer 509 acting as a mask in transitioning from
`
`Figure 22(b) to 22(c)) does not follow. Even Patent Owner’s own expert rejected
`
`Patent Owner’s unsupported argument layer 509 is a mask in Figures 22(b) to 22(c).
`
`EX1048, at 97:12–99:21.
`
`Response to Observation No. 12:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the guise of a statement of relevance, Patent Owner
`
`argues Dr. Smith’s prior declaration testimony “improperly imported descriptions
`
`from Grill’s embodiment of Figure 6A into Grill’s embodiment of Figures 5A-5H.”
`
`Paper 34, at 14. Whether column 8, lines 24 to 31, of Grill describe Figure 5 is
`
`irrelevant. The preceding paragraph states FIGS. 6A–6F show a “variation of the
`
`FIG. 5 method.” EX1005, at 8:9–13. Dr. Smith’s declaration, which Patent Owner’s
`
`Observation No. 12 references, states, “Grill’s hard mask layers are about 20 to 50
`
`nm thick,” finding the description of Grill at column 8, lines 24 to 31,
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`representative of what a POSITA would have understood the thickness of the hard
`
`mask layers in Grill’s embodiments would be. EX1050, at ¶65. His opinion is
`
`consistent not only with the written description of Grill, but also with the ’696
`
`patent and other examples of record. See, e.g., EX1001, at 10:44–45, 15:9–11,
`
`16:59–64, 19:8–12, 21:5–7, 23:1–3, 25:9–11, 28:14–16, 30:14–16; EX1005, at
`
`8:24–31; EX1010, at 7:4–6.
`
`Response to Observation No. 13:
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation No. 1 is improper as it contains arguments the
`
`Board’s rules do not permit. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-
`
`68 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the guise of a statement of relevance, Patent Owner
`
`argues Dr. Smith’s prior declaration testimony “is importing teachings into the ’696
`
`patent and the Japanese ’371 application.” Paper 34, at 15. Whether the ’696 patent
`
`or the Japanese ’371 application specifically use the term “overetch” is irrelevant to
`
`whether they describe an overetch process. Dr. Smith’s declaration explains how
`
`the Japanese ’371 application describes overetch, and explains that overetch is so
`
`well known in the art it has a name. EX1050, at ¶36. The cited testimony (EX2040,
`
`at 53:17–54:11) is also incomplete. See EX2040, at 54:12–57:4. Dr. Smith further
`
`testified that overetch “was something that was commonly known, and one of
`
`ordinary skill would have carried this out,” citing the Chang & Sze reference
`
`(EX1032). EX2040, at 55:14–17. He also noted that “some overetch is always done
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01377, IPR2017-00922
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`in manufacturing to ensure the etch goes to completion everywhere,” citing the
`
`Plummer reference (EX1031). EX2040, at 56:21–57:4.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 23, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Darren M. Jiron/
`Darren M. Jiron
`Reg. No. 45,777
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), this is to certify that I served a true and correct
`
`copy of the PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, PH.D. by electronic mail, on this
`
`23rd day of August, 2017, on counsel of record for the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`
`Andrew N. Thomases
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`
`Jordan M. Rossen
`jordan.rossen@ropesgray.com
`
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`
`
`IPBridgeTSMCPTABService@ropesgray.com
`
`Patent Owner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`
`A true and correct copy of the PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE
`
`CROSS- EXAMINATION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, PH.D. was also served by
`
`electronic mail, on this 23rd day of August, 2017, on counsel of record for
`
`Petitioner GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. at the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David Tennant
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings
`setienne@whitecase.com
`
`Allen Wang
`allen.wang@whitecase.com
`
`wcptab@whitecase.com
`
`Dated: August 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WCGlobalFoundriesIPR1Team@whitecase.com
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`