`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: IPR2017-00924
`
`Patent 6,197,696
`
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
`JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2016-01379
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00924
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder
`
`presents identical arguments to those raised in the existing proceeding and agrees to
`
`reasonable limits on its role in the joined proceeding. See, e.g., Perfect World
`
`Entertainment, Inc., v. Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2015-
`
`01026, Paper 10, (PTAB Aug. 3, 2015); ION Geophysical Corporation and Ion
`
`International S.A.R.L. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2015-00567, Paper 14, (PTAB Apr.
`
`23, 2015); Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00845, Paper 14 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2014); Enzymotec Ltd. V. Neptune Technologies &
`
`Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19 (PTAB Jul. 9, 2014). Such is the
`
`situation here and joinder should be granted consistent with the Board’s “policy
`
`preference for joining a party that does not present new issues that might complicate
`
`or delay an existing proceeding.” Enzymotec, Paper 19, p. 6 citing 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office
`
`anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right – if an inter partes review is
`
`instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an identical
`
`petition will be joined to that proceeding, . . .”) (emphasis added).
`
`II. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`In Petitioner’s motion for joinder, Petitioner has already proposed that:
`
`1)
`
`As long as TSMC remains in the joined IPR, Petitioner agrees to remain
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00924
`
`in a circumscribed “understudy” role without a separate opportunity to
`
`actively participate.
`
`2)
`
`Petitioner will not file additional written submissions, nor will
`
`Petitioner pose questions at depositions or argue at oral hearing without the
`
`prior permission of TSMC.
`
`3)
`
`Only in the event that TSMC settles will Petitioner seek to become
`
`active in the joined IPR.
`
`Essentially, Petitioner agrees to not pursue an active role (i.e., a circumscribed
`
`“understudy” role without a separate opportunity to actively participate) in the
`
`joined case unless TSMC settles. See Motion for Joinder, Paper 2 at pages 6 and 7.
`
`However, the Patent Owner argues that the Board should require the Petitioner
`
`to abide by various additional conditions as a joined party in IPR2016-01379. See
`
`PO’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and Preliminary Response, Paper
`
`7. The Petitioner believes that such 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. 6,197,696 be instituted and that the
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proceedings be joined with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
`
`Limited (“TSMC”) v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case No. IPR2016-01379.
`
`IPR2017-00924
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`White & Case LLP
`
`Date: April 12, 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
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00924
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing REPLY TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER
`
`PARTES REVIEW IPR2016-01379 was served on April 12, 2017, via email
`
`directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at the following:
`
`Andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`Jordan.rossen@ropesgray.com
`James.l.davis@ropesgray.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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`