`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDARIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: To be Assigned
`
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. § 315 (c) 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ..........................1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete the
`review in a timely manner .....................................................................4
`
`Joinder will promote efficiency by consolidating issues,
`avoiding duplicate efforts, and preventing inconsistencies ..................5
`
`C.
`
`Joinder will not prejudice IP Bridge…… .............................................5
`
`I V . CONCLUSION................................................................................................6
`
`i
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385 ............................4
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..........................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................1, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1).................................................................................................6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)...............................................................................................4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ...................................................................................................1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c).............................................................................................4, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a).................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) .............................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`
`I. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`GlobalFoundaries, Inc. (“Global”) respectfully submits this Motion for
`
`Joinder, together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,538,324 B1 (“the ’324 Patent”) (“Petition”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), Global requests institution of an inter partes
`
`review and joinder with the inter partes review concerning the same patent in
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (“TSMC”) v. Godo
`
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case No. IPR2016-01264 (the “Second TSMC IPR”), which
`
`was instituted on December 21, 2016.
`
`Global submits that: (1) joinder is appropriate because it will promote
`
`efficient determination of the validity of the ’324 Patent without prejudice to
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”); (2) Global’s Petition includes grounds that
`
`are essentially the same as the ground instituted in the Second TSMC IPR; (3)
`
`joinder would not affect the pending schedule in the Second TSMC IPR nor
`
`increase the complexity of that proceeding, minimizing costs; and (4) Global is
`
`willing to act as an “understudy” to TSMC, only assuming an active role in the
`
`event TSMC settles with IP Bridge. Thus, Petitioner does not seek to alter the
`
`grounds upon which the Board has already found support in instituting the Second
`
`TSMC IPR, and joinder will have no impact on the existing schedule in the Second
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSMC IPR.
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b),
`
`as it is submitted within one month of the date on which the Second TSMC IPR
`
`was instituted.
`
`
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`1.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 is the owner of the ’324 Patent.
`
`2. On June 24, 2016, TSMC filed its petition for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of the ‘324 Patent.
`
`3. On December 21, 2016, a decision instituting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of the ’324 Patent was entered in the Second TSMC
`
`IPR (Paper No. 7, IPR2016-01264) on the grounds that claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9
`
`were unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 (“the ’752 patent” or “Zhang”)
`
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 (“the ’353 patent” or “Ding”) under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zhang in view of Ding
`
`and Sun1.
`
`4. On December 21, 2016, a decision instituting inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of the ’324 Patent was entered in a First TSMC IPR
`
`(Paper No. 7, IPR2016-01249) on the grounds that claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 were
`
`unpatentable over Ding in view of Zhang under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`1 Sun et al., “Properties of reactively sputter-deposited Ta – N thin films,” Thin Solid Films, Vol.
`236 (1993), pp. 347–351.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
` Oral argument is currently scheduled for August 8, 2017 in the
`
`5.
`
`Second TSMC IPR.
`
`6. Concurrently with this Motion for Joinder, Global is filing a
`
`petition for inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 of the ’324 Patent.
`
`7. The Petition includes grounds that are essentially the same as the
`
`ground instituted in the Second TSMC IPR.
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) permits joinder of like
`
`review proceedings, e.g., an inter partes review (“IPR”) may be joined with
`
`another inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a). The statutory provision
`
`governing joinder of inter partes review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which
`
`states:
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in
`
`his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`
`review any person who properly files a petition under section
`
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response
`
`under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes
`
`review under section 314.
`
`In exercising its discretion to grant joinder, the Board considers the impact
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`of substantive and procedural issues on the proceedings, as well as other
`
`considerations, while being “mindful that patent trial regulations, including the
`
`rule for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding.” See Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17 (July 29, 2013) at 3. The Board should
`
`consider “the policy preference for joining a party that does not present new issues
`
`that might complicate or delay an existing proceeding.” Id. at 10. Under this
`
`framework, joinder of the present Petition with the SecondTSMC IPR is
`
`appropriate.
`
`“A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified.” Id. at 4. Each of these is addressed fully below.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete the review
`in a timely manner
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and associated rule 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c) provide that inter partes review proceedings should be completed and
`
`the Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of the review. In
`
`this case, joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to issue the decision because
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`Global will be joining the grounds on which the Second TSMC IPR has been
`
`instituted. In fact, Global’s grounds are essentially identical to the grounds for
`
`which the Board instituted the Second TSMC IPR.
`
`In addition, Global respectfully proposes that as long as TSMC remains in
`
`the joined IPR, Global agrees to remain in a circumscribed “understudy” role
`
`without a separate opportunity to actively participate. Thus, Global will not file
`
`additional written submissions, nor will Global pose questions at depositions or
`
`argue at oral hearing without the prior permission of TSMC. Only in the event that
`
`TSMC settles will Global seek to become active in the joined IPR.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder will promote efficiency by consolidating issues, avoiding
`
`duplicate efforts, and preventing inconsistencies
`
`Global would not be time barred from filing the present Petition
`
`without a corresponding motion for joinder. However, determining the same
`
`validity questions concerning the ’324 patent in separate concurrent proceedings
`
`would duplicate efforts, and create a risk of inconsistent results and piecemeal
`
`review. Proceeding with a consolidated inter partes review would avoid
`
`inefficiency and potential inconsistency and would result in a final written decision
`
`without any delay.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder will not prejudice IP Bridge
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice IP Bridge. If joinder is granted,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`Global will be joining the grounds instituted in the Second TSMC IPR, thus the
`
`primarily issues will already be before the Board, such that joinder would not
`
`affect the timing of the Second TSMC IPR or the content of IP Bridge’s Patent
`
`Owner response due on March 7, 2017. But, to the extent necessary, any extension
`
`to the schedule that may be required is permitted by law and the applicable
`
`rules. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). In fact, joinder is likely
`
`more convenient and efficient for IP Bridge by providing a single trial on the ’324
`
`patent. By allowing all grounds of invalidity to be addressed in a single
`
`proceeding, the interests of all parties and the Board will be well served.
`
`
`
`I V . CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Global respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 B1 be granted and that the
`
`proceedings be joined with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
`
`Limited (“TSMC”) v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case No. IPR2016-01264.
`
`Joinder will ensure a just, speedy and inexpensive resolution in both proceedings.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hereby authorized to charge any
`
`additional fees associated with this filing to Deposit Account No. 50-3672
`
`(Customer ID No. 106,224).
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`White & Case LLP
`
`Date: January 23, 2017
`
`/Christopher P. Carroll/
`
`Christopher P. Carroll (Reg. No. 55776)
`75 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1814
`Telephone: 617-979-9342
`Fax: 617-979-9301
`christopher.carroll@whitecase.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GLOBALFOUNDARIES, INC.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`
`CERTIFICATION OF
`SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 23rd
`
`day of January, a complete copy of the foregoing “MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)” and all
`
`supporting exhibits were served via Priority Mail Express® to the Patent Owner
`
`by serving the correspondence address of record for the ’324 Patent to:
`
`Attn: Paul J. Esatto, Jr
`SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
`400 Garden City
`Plaza Suite 300
`Garden City NY 11530
`
`Courtesy copies of the foregoing were also served via Priority Mail
`
`Express® on counsel of record for the Petitioner and Patent Owner in Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (“TSMC”) v. Godo Kaisha
`
`IP Bridge 1, Case No. IPR2016-0124 as follows:
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue,
`NW Washington DC
`20001-4413
`
`Michael J. Fink
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01264
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`White & Case LLP
`
`By: /Christopher P. Carroll/
`
`Christopher P. Carroll
`Reg. No. 55776
`White & Case LLP
`75 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1814
`christopher.carroll@whitecase.com
`
`Charles Larsen
`Reg. No. 48533
`White & Case LLP
`75 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1814
`charleslarsen@whitecase.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`GLOBALFOUNDARIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`