`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: IPR2017-00920
`
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2016-01264
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00920
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board has waived the one-month requirement under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b) and granted joinder where: 1) the Petitioner’s asserted grounds and
`
`arguments are identical to those already at issue in the existing proceedings,
`
`2) joinder would require no change to the trial schedule, 3) joinder would impose no
`
`added burden on the existing parties because the Petitioners were willing to have
`
`only a limited “understudy” role, and 4) the Petitioner attempted previously within
`
`the one-month requirement to be joined. All four criteria are met here. See Sony
`
`Corporation of America et al., v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00495, Paper 13 (PTAB September 16, 2013).
`
`II. ARGUMENTS
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b), the Board “may waive or suspend a requirement
`
`of [part 42 of the Board’s rules] and may place conditions on the waiver or
`
`suspension.” See IPR2013-00495, Paper 13 at page 4 citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).
`
`As discussed below, consistent with the Board’s decision in IPR2013-00495,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board waive the one-month requirement
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) and grant joinder to IPR2016-01264.
`
`
`
`Substantive Issues
`A.
`The Petition and Motion for Joinder raise no new substantive issues, which
`
`favors granting joinder:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00920
`
`1)
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete the proceedings
`
`in one year because the Petition does not raise any issues that are not already
`
`before the Board. See Motion for Joinder, Paper 3 at page 6.
`
`2)
`
`The Petition asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as those on
`
`which a trial was instituted in case IPR2016-01264. See Petition, Paper 1.
`
`3)
`
`Petitioner’s arguments regarding the asserted prior art references are
`
`identical to the arguments made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
`
`Company Limited (TSMC) in IPR2016-01264. See Petition, Paper 1.
`
`4)
`
`Petitioner submitted the same Expert Declaration as submitted by
`
`TSMC in IPR2016-01264. See Exhibit 1003.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural Issues
`
`The Petition and Motion for Joinder raise no new procedural issues, which
`
`favors granting joinder:
`
`1)
`
`Joinder will not require any change to the trial schedule or affect
`
`timely completion of the review. See Motion for Joinder, Paper 3 at page 6.
`
`Hence, the Patent Owner will not be prejudiced by the Board permitting
`
`joinder. See Motion for Joinder, Paper 3 at pages 7 and 8.
`
`2)
`
`Petitioner has agreed to have only a limited “understudy” role if joined
`
`with case IPR2016-01264 and, therefore, the procedural impact on the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00920
`
`instituted proceedings will be minimal, if any. See Motion for Joinder, Paper
`
`3 at page 7.
`
`C. Other Considerations
`
`A previous petition including the same grounds as in this case and a motion
`
`for joinder to IPR2016-01264 was timely filed according to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b) in the name of GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC., one of the real parties
`
`in interest in this case. See IPR2017-00757, Papers 2 and 3. The petition in
`
`IPR2017-00757 was dismissed in favor of this petition, which includes an
`
`additional real party in interest GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC. See IPR2017-
`
`00757, Paper 15 and IPR2017-00920, Paper 1.
`
`In IPR2013-00495, the Board recognized the petitioner’s previous attempts
`
`to be joined within the one-month period as a special circumstance that weighed
`
`in favor of waiving the one-month requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) and
`
`the granting of joinder. In this case, the timely filed motion for joinder in
`
`IPR2017-00757 by one of the real parties in interest in this case should be
`
`considered a previous attempt to be joined within the one-month period under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`D. Additional Real Party In Interest
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner has raised an unsupported and illusory issue regarding the
`
`identified real parties in interest (“RPI”) in this case based on RPIs in two other
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00920
`
`IPRs. 1 See PO’s Combined Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and
`
`Preliminary Response, Paper 8 at pages 4 and 10. See also IPR2017-00757 and
`
`IPR2017-00903. This argument is entirely speculative and illusory.
`
`With respect to IPR2017-00757, the Petition in this case was filed out of an
`
`abundance of caution and added a
`
`second
`
`real party
`
`in
`
`interest,
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S.
`
`INC., which
`
`is
`
`a
`
`subsidiary
`
`of
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC., with the intent of avoiding burdening the parties and
`
`the Board with potential issues regarding the real party in interest. Simply adding a
`
`second real party in interest to the Petition does not raise an issue regarding the real
`
`party in interest as asserted by the Patent Owner. With respect to IPR2017-00903,
`
`the fact that the real parties in interest in IPR2017-00903 are the same as the real
`
`parties in interest for this case suggests instead that there is no issue with the real
`
`parties in interest in this case. Hence, the Patent Owner’s argument concerning an
`
`alleged issue regarding the real party in interest is not only speculative and
`
`unsupported by any evidence, but inconsistent with the existing facts. Giving any
`
`weight to the Patent Owner’s “red herring” threatens the Board’s objective of
`
`conducting the proceeding in an efficient manner.
`
`Finally, Petitioner should not suffer the disproportionate penalty of denial of
`
`
`1 Patent Owner also referred to IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00920
`
`joinder for merely adding a real party in interest when there is no prima facie
`
`evidence of a genuine issue that would justify a schedule change and no
`
`demonstrable prejudice to the Patent Owner.
`
`E. Additional Conditions Proposed By Patent Owner
`
`
`
`The Petitioner believes that additional conditions are not warranted as the
`
`Petitioner is willing to have only a limited “understudy” role. However, Petitioner is
`
`willing to abide by such additional conditions as the Board deems appropriate.
`
`III . CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 B1 be instituted and that
`
`the proceedings be joined with Case No. IPR2016-01264.
`
`
`
`Date: April 17, 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00920
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that a copy of
`
`the foregoing
`
`AMENDED REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`
`FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2016-01264 was served on
`
`April 17, 2017, via email directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at
`
`the following:
`
`Ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`MFink@gbpatent.com
`Aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`/Christopher Carroll/
`White & Case LLP
`75 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1814
`Telephone: (617) 979-9342
`Facsimile: (617) 439-6702
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`