UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: To be Assigned
`
`Patent 7,126,174 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
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: To be Assigned
`
`Patent 7,126,174 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 IPR2016-01247
`
`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 IPR2016-01247
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`I. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`GlobalFoundries, Inc. (“Global”) respectfully submits this Motion for
`
`Joinder, together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,126,174 B1 (“the ’174 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. IPR2016-01247 (the “Second TSMC IPR”), which
`
`was instituted on January 4, 2017.
`
`Global submits that: (1) joinder is appropriate because it will promote
`
`efficient determination of the validity of the ’174 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
`
`TSMC IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`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 ’174 Patent.
`
`On June 24, 2016, TSMC filed its petition for inter partes review of
`
`2.
`
`claims 1, 4, 8-12, 14, and 16 of the ‘174 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`On January 4, 2017, a decision instituting inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 4, 8-12, 14, and 16 of the ’174 Patent was entered in a Second TSMC
`
`IPR (Paper No. 9, IPR2016-01247) on the grounds that claims 1, 4, 8-12, 14, and
`
`16 were unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,021,353 (“the ’353 patent” or
`
`“Lowrey”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,539,229 (“the ’229 patent” or
`
`“Noble”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Lowry in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,506,434 (“the ’434 patent” or “Ogawa).
`
`4.
`
`On January 4, 2017, a decision instituting inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of the ’174 Patent was entered in the First TSMC IPR
`
`(Paper No. 10, IPR2016-01246) on the grounds that claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 were
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,153,145 (“the ’145 patent” or
`
`“Lee”) in view of Noble under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Lee in view of Ogawa.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
` 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, 4, 8-12, 14, and 16 of the ’174 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`of substantive and procedural issues on the proceedings, as well as other
`
`considerations, while being “mindful that patent trial regulations, including the
`
`rules 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 Second TSMC 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`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 First 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 ’174 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,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`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 24, 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 ’174 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. 7,126,174 B1 be granted and that the
`
`proceedings be joined with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
`
`Limited (“TSMC”) v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case No. IPR2016-01247.
`
`Joinder will ensure a just, speedy and inexpensive resolution in both proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hereby authorized to charge any
`
`additional fees associated with this filing to Deposit Account No. 50-6826.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`Law Office of Kent J. Cooper
`
`Date: February 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Kent J. Cooper (Reg. No. 37296)
`9407 Scenic Bluff Drive
`Austin, TX 78733
`Telephone: 512-854-8091
`kent.cooper@kjcooperlaw.com
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`
`CERTIFICATION OF
`SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 3rd
`
`day of February 2017, 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 ’174 Patent to:
`
`Attn: Robert W. Zelnick
`MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMORY LLC
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`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. IPR2016-01247 as follows:
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue,
`NW Washington DC
`20001-4413
`
`Michael Fink
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Park Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01247
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Law Office of Kent J. Cooper
`
`
`By:
`
`Kent J. Cooper
`Reg. No. 37296
`Law Office of Kent J. Cooper
`9407 Scenic Bluff Drive
`Austin, TX 78733
`kent.cooper@kjcooperlaw.com
`
`Adam Floyd
`Reg. No. 39192
`Dorsey & Whitney LLP
`1400 Wewatta Street
`Suite 400
`Denver, CO 80202-5549
`floyd.adam@dorsey.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
