Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent 6,197,696
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SECOND SET OF
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits as
`
`indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon, without limitation.
`
`Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”)
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent 6,197,696
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SECOND SET OF
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits as
`
`indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon, without limitation.
`
`Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”)
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the evidence submitted
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`by Petitioner in its Petition.
`
`The following objections apply to the Exhibits indicated below as they are
`
`actually presented by Petitioner, in the context of the Petition and not in the context
`
`of any other substantive argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner expressly objects to any other purported use of these
`
`Exhibits, including as substantive evidence in this proceeding, which would be
`
`improper under the applicable rules, and Patent Owner expressly asserts, reserves
`
`and does not waive any other objections that would be applicable in such a context.
`
`I. Objections to Exhibit 1050 and Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1050 to the Petition, titled “Declaration of Dr.
`
`Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D. in Support of Petitioner’s Reply”
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 401-402 (Relevance); F.R.E. 403 (Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons);
`
`F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E. 703 (“Bases of an Expert’s
`
`Opinion Testimony); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1050 under F.R.E. 702 and 703, and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61. The declarant of Exhibit 1050, Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D., fails to
`
`provide sufficient underlying facts or data upon which the statements contained
`
`therein could legitimately be based, in violation of F.R.E. 702. Dr. Smith has also
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`not “reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case,” and his
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`opinions in Exhibit 1050 are not “the product of reliable principles and methods,”
`
`in violation of F.R.E. 702. Furthermore, there is no indication that Dr. Smith based
`
`his opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely in violation of F.R.E. 703.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1050 under F.R.E. 401 and 402
`
`(relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (probative value outweighed by prejudice, confusing of
`
`issues, wasting time).
`
`II. Objections to Exhibits 1031, 1032, 1033, and Any Reference to/Reliance
`Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibits 1031, 1032, and 1033, titled, “James D.
`
`
`
`Plummer et al., ‘Silicon VLSI Technology: Fundamentals, Practice, and Modeling’
`
`(2000),” “C.Y. Chang & S. M. Sze, ‘ULSI Technology’ (1996),” and “S. Wolf &
`
`R.N. Tauber, ‘Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era: Volume 1: Process
`
`Technology’ (1986),” respectively.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 106 (“Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded
`
`Statements”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any evidence of authenticity of Exhibits 1031,
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`1032, and 1033, or any evidence of the date on which any of these exhibits were
`
`published or made available, in violation of, inter alia, F.R.E. 901.
`
`Further, Exhibits 1031, 1032, and 1033 appear to be incomplete excerpts of
`
`documents. To the extent the Reply or any other submission of Petitioner purports
`
`to refer to or rely on any of the exhibits, Patent Owner objects to such reference to
`
`or reliance on an isolated portion as incomplete (F.R.E. 403, 106).
`
`Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Smith rely on Exhibits 1031, 1032, and
`
`1033 for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`demonstrating that any hearsay exception applies, this violates Rules 801 and 802.
`
`See, e.g., Reply at 4.
`
`III. Objections to Exhibits 1045, 1046, 1047, and Any Reference to/Reliance
`Thereon
`
`
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibits 1045, 1046, and 1047, titled, “J.M. Moran &
`
`D. Maydan, ‘High Resolution, Steep Profile Resist Patterns,’ J. Vac. Sci. & Tech.,
`
`vol. 16, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1979),” “M.M. O’Toole et al., ‘Linewidth Control in
`
`Projection Lithography Using a Multilayer Resist Process,’ IEEE Transactions on
`
`Electron Devices, vol. ED-28, no. 11 (Nov. 1981),” and “E. Bassous et al., ‘A
`
`Three-Layer Resist System for Deep U.V. and RIE Microlithography on
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Nonplanar Surfaces,’ J. Electrochem. Soc.: Solid-State Sci. & Tech. (Feb. 1983),”
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`respectively.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any evidence of authenticity of Exhibits 1045,
`
`1046, and 1047, or any evidence of the date on which any of these exhibits were
`
`published or made available, in violation of, inter alia, F.R.E. 901.
`
`Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Smith rely on Exhibits 1045, 1046, and
`
`1047 for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`demonstrating that any hearsay exception applies, this violates Rules 801 and 802.
`
`See, e.g., Reply at 7.
`
`Dated: July 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Andrew N. Thomases (Lead counsel)
`Reg. No. 40,841
`ROPES & GRAY, LLP
`1900 University Ave., 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 617-4000
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James L. Davis, Jr.
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`
`Jordan M. Rossen (Back-up counsel)
`Reg. No. 74,064
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington D.C. 20006-6807
`P: 202-508-4759/F: 617-235-9492
`jordan.rossen@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`J. Steven Baughman (Back-up counsel)
`Reg. No. 47,414
`Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
`Garrison LLP
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1047
`P: 202-223-7340/F: 202-403-3740
`sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`
`James L. Davis, Jr. (Back-up counsel)
`Reg. No. 57,325
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`P: 650-617-4794/F: 617-235-9492
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys For Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER’S
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS has been
`
`served in its entirety by causing the aforementioned document to be electronically
`
`mailed, pursuant to Petitioner’s agreement (Paper 2 at 81-82 & Paper 23 at 2), to
`
`the following attorneys of record for the Petitioner listed below:
`
`
`Petitioner’s
`Counsel of
`Record:
`
`
`
`
`Darren M. Jiron (Reg. No. 45,777)
`darren.jiron@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Freedom Square,
`11955 Freedom Drive,
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`
`E. Robert Yoches (Reg. No. 30,120)
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`J. Preston Long (Reg. No. 65,125)
`JP.Long@finnegan.com
`Finnegan , Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner , LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington , DC 20001-4413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369)
`Joshua.Goldberg@finnegan.com
`Finnegan , Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner , LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington , DC 20001-4413
`
`TSMC-IPB-PTAB@finnegan.com
`
`Dated:
`
`July 28, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Name: Crena Pacheco
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
