`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: IPR2017-00923
`
`Patent 6,197,696
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01378
`
`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 IPR2016-01378
`
`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 IPR2016-01378
`I. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. (“Global”) respectfully submits this Motion for
`
`Joinder, together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,197,696 B1 (“the ’696 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. IPR2016-01378 (the “Third TSMC IPR”), which
`
`was instituted on January 18, 2017.
`
`Global submits that: (1) joinder is appropriate because it will promote
`
`efficient determination of the validity of the ’696 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 Third TSMC IPR; (3)
`
`joinder would not affect the pending schedule in the Third 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 Third
`
`TSMC IPR, and joinder will have no impact on the existing schedule in the Third
`
`TSMC IPR.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`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 Third TSMC IPR was
`
`instituted.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`1.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 is the owner of the ’696 Patent.
`
`On July 12, 2016, TSMC filed its petition for inter partes review of
`
`2.
`
`claims 13 and 14 of the ‘696 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`On July 12, 2016, TSMC concurrently filed related petitions for inter
`
`partes review of various claims of the ‘696 Patent in IPR2016-01376 (“the First
`
`TSMC IPR”), IPR2016-01377 (“the Second TSMC IPR”), and IPR2016-01379
`
`(“the Fourth TSMC IPR”).
`
`4.
`
`On January 18, 2017, a decision instituting inter partes review of
`
`c l a i m s 1 3 an d 1 3 o f the ’696 Patent was entered in the Third TSMC IPR
`
`(Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01378) on the grounds that claims 13 and 14 were
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,140,226 (“the ’226 patent” or
`
`“Grill”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,592,024 (“the ’024 patent” or
`
`“Aoyama”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`5.
`
`On January 18, 2017, a decision instituting inter partes review of
`
`claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 Patent was entered in the First TSMC IPR (Paper
`
`No. 11, IPR2016-01376) on the grounds that claims 13 and 15 were unpatentable
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`over Grill in view of Aoyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a decision
`
`instituting inter partes review of claims 10-12 of the ’696 Patent was entered
`
`in the Second TSMC IPR (Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01377) on the grounds that
`
`claims 10-12 were unpatentable over Grill in view of Aoyama, and a decision
`
`instituting inter partes review of claims 10 and 12 of the ’696 Patent was
`
`entered in the Fourth TSMC IPR (Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01379) on the grounds
`
`that claims 10 and 12 were unpatentable over Grill in view of Aoyama and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,920,790 (“the ’790 Patent” or “Wetzel”).
`
`6.
`
`Oral argument is currently scheduled for September 12, 2017 in the
`
`First TSMC IPR, Second TSMC IPR, Third TSMC IPR, and Fourth TSMC IPR.
`
`7.
`
`Concurrently with
`
`this Motion for Joinder, Global
`
`is filing
`
`Petitions for inter partes review of various other claims of the ’696 Patent,
`
`including grounds that are essentially the same as the grounds in the First TSMC
`
`IPR, Second TSMC IPR, and Fourth TSMC IPR.
`
`8.
`
`The Petition includes grounds that are essentially the same as
`
`the grounds instituted in the Third 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`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
`
`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 Third 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`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 will be joining the grounds on which the Third TSMC IPR has been
`
`instituted. In fact, Global’s grounds are essentially identical to the grounds for
`
`which the Board instituted the Third 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`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 ’696 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 will be joining the grounds instituted in the Third TSMC IPR, thus the
`
`primarily issues will already be before the Board, such that joinder would not
`
`affect the timing of the Third TSMC IPR or the content of IP Bridge’s Patent
`
`Owner response due on April 5, 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 ’696
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6 , 1 9 7 , 6 9 6 B1 be granted and that
`
`the proceedings be joined with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
`
`Limited (“TSMC”) v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case No. IPR2016-01378.
`
`Joinder will ensure a just, speedy and inexpensive resolution in both proceedings.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hereby authorized to charge any
`
`additional fees associated with this filing to Deposit Account No. 50-3672.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`White & Case LLP
`
`Date: February 16, 2017
`
`/Christopher P. Carroll/
`
`
`
`Christopher P. Carroll (Reg. No. 55,776)
`White & Case LLP
`75 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1814
`Telephone: 617-979-9342
`Fax: 617-979-9301
`christopher.carroll@whitecase.com
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`
`CERTIFICATION OF
`SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 16th
`
`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 Fedex® to the Patent Owner by
`
`serving the correspondence address of record for the ’696 Patent to:
`
`Attn: Gerald J. Ferguson, Jr.
`SIXBEY, FRIEDMAN, LEEDOM &
`FERGUSON, P.C.
`8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 800
`McLean, VA 22102
`Attn: Gerald J. Ferguson, Jr.
`
`Courtesy copies of the foregoing were also served via Fedex® 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. IPR2016-01378 as follows:
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue,
`NW Washington DC
`20001-4413
`
`Attn: Andrew N. Thomases
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-01378
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`White & Case LLP
`
`By: /Christopher P. Carroll/
`
`Christopher P. Carroll (Reg. No. 55,776)
`White & Case LLP
`75 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1814
`Telephone: 617-979-9342
`Fax: 617-979-9301
`christopher.carroll@whitecase.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`