throbber
DOCKET NO.: 2003195-00123US3 and US4
`Filed By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Dominic E. Massa, Reg. No. 44,905
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-018431
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude admissible evidence from the Board’s
`
`I.
`
`
`
`consideration to create an incomplete record and to avoid the merits. The Board
`
`can review the full record and appropriately weight the evidence and should deny
`
`Patent Owner’s motion.
`
`
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner moves to exclude portions of Dr. Shanfield’s
`
`testimony during the re-direct and re-cross related to undisputed issues because Dr.
`
`Shanfield was allegedly coached. He was not. Dr. Shanfield gave consistent
`
`technical testimony throughout the deposition. After a series of misleading
`
`questions on cross, Petitioner’s counsel conducted a routine re-direct. When Dr.
`
`Shanfield offered testimony on re-cross based on a misstatement of the law,
`
`Petitioner’s counsel represented to Dr. Shanfield what the law was, and Dr.
`
`Shanfield promptly confirmed his original technical testimony, which he had
`
`offered before any alleged coaching.
`
`Even Patent Owner appears to agree the Board should review the full record.
`
`Patent Owner’s motion for observations asks the Board to consider the exact same
`
`testimony it seeks to exclude in this motion. This further highlights the improper
`
`nature of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude. Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48767-68 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“In the event that cross-examination
`
`occurs after a party has filed its last substantive paper on an issue, such cross-
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`examination may result in testimony that should be called to the Board’s attention,
`
`but the party does not believe a motion to exclude the testimony is warranted.”)
`
`The Board should review and weigh the evidence with the benefit of the full
`
`record. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude should be denied.
`
`II. Dr. Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony is Proper and Admissible
`
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Shanfield’s deposition
`
`transcript at Ex. 2232 at 144:1-12, 145:1-147:8, 167:14-173:3, and 173:10-178:4.
`
`Patent Owner alleges wrongly that Dr. Shanfield was coached and seeks to exclude
`
`his re-direct testimony and his testimony during its own re-cross. Patent Owner’s
`
`motion should be rejected because it is premised on a mischaracterization of the
`
`record. While Petitioner believes the record speaks for itself and the Board can
`
`appropriately weigh the evidence, Petitioner nonetheless responds here to address
`
`Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the deposition.
`
`
`
`Dr. Shanfield offered consistent technical testimony throughout the
`
`deposition. Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 51:22-52:2; id., 30:4-6; id. 52:21-53:6.
`
`To provide a clear record for the Board, Petitioner asked Dr. Shanfield routine re-
`
`direct questions to clarify his responses to unclear questioning during cross. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 143:10-21 (“Q. Do you also recall discussing
`
`embodiments in the specification of the ’501 patent that includes stress films? A.
`
`Yes, I do. Q. Could you please look at Claim 1 of the ’501 patent. A. Yes. Q.
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Does Claim 1 recite any stress limitations? A. No.”) On re-cross, after a long day
`
`of deposition, Dr. Shanfield confused how the requirements of dependent claims
`
`relate to independent claims and offered testimony that was clearly based on that
`
`misunderstanding. Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 159:5-160:23. To provide a
`
`clear record, counsel for Petitioner provided a representation to Dr. Shanfield on
`
`the record regarding how as a legal matter dependent claims relate to independent
`
`claims, so that Dr. Shanfield could provide his technical testimony based on that
`
`legal understanding. Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 167:14-18. Dr. Shanfield
`
`then confirmed his initial testimony during cross – before any alleged coaching –
`
`was correct. On re-cross, Counsel for Patent Owner tried desperately to get Dr.
`
`Shanfield to admit he had changed his technical testimony, knowing full well that
`
`he had not. Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 174:12-23; see also id. 175:2-15.
`
`Having failed to create a misleading record during the deposition, Patent Owner
`
`now seeks to exclude Dr. Shanfield’s confirmation that his initial testimony during
`
`cross (before any alleged coaching) was correct.
`
`
`
`The Board should reject Patent Owner’s attempt to create an incomplete and
`
`misleading record. Even Patent Owner appears to agree this testimony is
`
`admissible. For purposes of its Observations on Cross, it asks the Board to
`
`consider the exact same testimony it seeks to exclude in this motion. Compare
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross (Paper 30), Observation #12 (asking the
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Board to consider testimony at 144:1-12, 145:1-147:8), Observation #11 (asking
`
`the Board to consider testimony at 167:14-173:3, and 173:10-178:4) with Mot.
`
`(seeking to exclude the exact same testimony). This further illustrates why the
`
`Board should consider the full record. While Petitioner does not rely on the
`
`testimony Patent Owner seeks to exclude for its affirmative case, this testimony
`
`illustrates how the Patent Owner’s seeks to mischaracterize the record and should
`
`be considered by the Board.
`
`A. Dr. Shanfield’s consistent Testimony During Cross-Examination
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Shanfield testified during cross-examination
`
`
`
`that claim 1 requires stress. To the contrary, Dr. Shanfield consistently testified –
`
`before any alleged coaching – that claim 1 does not require stress. Ex. 2232
`
`[Shanfield Reply Tr.], 51:22-52:2 (“Q. Does that language require that the silicon
`
`nitride film apply stress? A. No. The claim language doesn’t require stress.”); id.,
`
`30:4-6; id. 52:21-53:6. This testimony is consistent with Dr. Shanfield’s testimony
`
`in his initial declaration that the challenged claims do not require stress, where he
`
`explains that none of the challenged claims recite stress limitations and that the
`
`stress limitations appear in only the unchallenged dependent claims. Ex. 1202
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`[Shanfield Decl.], ¶49 n. 3.2 Patent Owner never disputed this and confirms in its
`
`Motion to Exclude that it agrees the challenged claims do not require stress. Mot.,
`
`5 (“To be clear, Patent Owner does not [assert] … claim 1 requires that the silicon
`
`nitride film induce stress.”); Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross (Paper 34),
`
`Observation #10 (same).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner ignores this testimony entirely. Instead, Patent Owner cites a
`
`series of questions it asked Dr. Shanfield about an embodiment in the specification.
`
`Mot., 5, citing Ex. [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 56:17-58:2. The immediately preceding
`
`testimony shows Dr. Shanfield is discussing an exemplary embodiment, not what
`
`is required by the claims. Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 56:4-16 (“Q. So in the
`
`context of the '501 patent, can a silicon nitride film, which is called out in the last
`
`limitation of Claim 1, be made out of multiple layers if those layers deliver only
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Dr. Shanfield has testified consistently that his own opinions are reflected in his
`
`declarations and that he spent at least on the order of 100 hours on his initial
`
`declarations alone. Ex. 2209, 9:10-16, 10:2-8, 11:6-23. Any similarities between
`
`Dr. Shanfield’s declaration in this proceeding and the Petition is simply due to the
`
`Petition adopting and presenting his analysis. Patent Owner’s suggestions to the
`
`contrary are without merit.
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`negligible stress? A. There's nothing in the claim language that prohibits it. The
`
`context of the '501 patent though is referring to silicon nitride that will create a
`
`stress field in the substrate as a whole. So in the literal sense, the claim language
`
`doesn't prohibit the theoretical zero stress film. But what's being referred to is a
`
`stress-inducing film.”).
`
`
`
`Thus, Dr. Shanfield’s consistently testified before any alleged coaching that
`
`the claims do not require stress, as he had testified in his initial declaration and as
`
`the parties agree.
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s Routine Re-Direct Did Not Coach Dr. Shanfield
`Although Dr. Shanfield testified consistently that the claims do not require
`
`
`
`stress, Petitioner believed – rightly – that Patent Owner might try to use the
`
`testimony it obtained at 56:17-58:2, based on unclear questions, to imply that Dr.
`
`Shanfield otherwise. To provide a clear record, Petitioner asked Dr. Shanfield a
`
`series of open-ended questions to confirm which claims require stress (three
`
`unchallenged dependent claims) and which claims do not (the challenged claims).
`
`Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 143:10-144:7. Dr. Shanfield offered the same
`
`testimony he offered in his initial declaration, namely, that the challenged claims to
`
`not require stress. Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 144:9-12.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s re-direct did not coach or otherwise suggest the answer Dr.
`
`Shanfield should give. In fact, to avoid even a hint of coaching, Petitioner’s
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`counsel walked through the claims themselves with Dr. Shanfield, rather than
`
`pointing him to his testimony in his initial declaration.
`
`
`
`Petitioner believes the Board can properly weigh the evidence and evaluate
`
`the full record. Patent Owner’s efforts to exclude the re-direct would create a less
`
`clear record and should be rejected.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Counsel Recognized It Had Obtained Testimony
`Based on a Misstatement of the Law and Sought to Capitalize on
`It
`Patent Owner argues that during re-cross Dr. Shanfield returned to his
`
`
`
`opinion on cross and that this opinion was that the claims require stress. Mot., 8.
`
`This argument is not supported by the record. As discussed above, Dr. Shanfield
`
`repeatedly confirmed on cross – before any alleged coaching – that the claims do
`
`not require any stress. Supra at II.A-B, citing Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.],
`
`51:22-52:2; id., 30:4-6, 52:21-53:6, 143:10-144:12.
`
`
`
`Rather, what occurred during re-cross is that after a long deposition, Dr.
`
`Shanfield, a technical expert, made a misstatement of law. Ex. 2232 [Shanfield
`
`Reply Tr.], 159:21-160:4. At the start of re-cross, Dr. Shanfield testified – as he
`
`had throughout the deposition – that the challenged claims do not require stress:
`
`“Q. So there's no requirement in Claim 1 of the ’501 patent that the silicon nitride
`
`film induce stress; is that correct? A. Claim language doesn't prohibit a zero
`
`stress film. That's correct.” Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 159:5-9. Not
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`satisfied, Patent Owner’s counsel repeatedly tried to get Dr. Shanfield to change
`
`his testimony by telling him “That’s not my question,” “This isn't the question,”
`
`and telling him to answer “without looking at the claim language.” Id., 159:10-18.
`
`At this point, Dr. Shanfield became confused by Patent Owner’s counsel’s
`
`questioning and mixed up how the requirements of dependent claims relate to
`
`independent claims. Id., 159:21-160:4. Patent Owner’s counsel seized upon the
`
`opportunity to take advantage of this misunderstanding, which Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel even acknowledged. Id., 160:5 (“Perhaps you’re confused.”) Thereafter,
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel did everything possible to prevent Dr. Shanfield from
`
`clarifying his testimony, going as far as attempting to stop the deposition with a
`
`question pending. Id., 168:5-11.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Properly Clarified the Law for Dr. Shanfield to Create
`a Clear Record of Dr. Shanfield’s Technical Testimony
`Given Dr. Shanfield’s apparent testimony based on a legal
`
`
`
`misunderstanding, Petitioner’s counsel clarified the law for Dr. Shenfield by
`
`providing a simple, non-leading legal representation: “Q. I'm going to represent to
`
`you that as a legal matter, a dependent claim recites additional limitations that are
`
`not present in the independent claim from which it depends. Do you have that
`
`understanding in mind?” Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 167:14-18. Petitioner’s
`
`counsel then gave Dr. Shanfield an opportunity to clarify his testimony, if he
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`desired, and Dr. Shanfield confirmed that as a technical matter, claim 1 does not
`
`require stress, just as he had testified before any alleged coaching: “Q. And with
`
`the understanding that we discussed earlier, is there anything you would like to
`
`clarify with your testimony regarding whether Claim 1 requires silicon nitride film
`
`to induce stress? Yes. Now that I understand – … [interruption by Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel] Yes. I do want to clarify. Now that I understand the legal issue, Claim 1
`
`does not require that -- it does not have any language in it that requires the film to
`
`have stress, as I said before. And what that means legally is that it's not required in
`
`meeting the limitations of Claim 1.” Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 171:16-
`
`172:14.
`
`
`
`On Patent Owner’s second re-cross (which Patent Owner also seeks to
`
`exclude), Dr. Shanfield confirmed repeatedly that he was simply “mistaken about
`
`the legal implications” when answering Patent Owner’s questions on re-cross. Ex.
`
`2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 174:12-23; see also id. 175:2-15, 176:4-24, 177:11-19.
`
`
`
`Having failed to prevent Dr. Shanfield from clarifying his testimony, Patent
`
`Owner now seeks to selectively exclude it to create an incomplete and misleading
`
`transcript. Petitioner believes the record speaks for itself and that the Board can
`
`appropriately weigh the full record. Patent Owner’s motion as to selected portions
`
`of Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.] should be denied.
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Ex. 2232 [Shanfield Reply Tr.] at 144:1-12,
`
`
`
`145:1-147:8, 167:14-173:3, and 173:10-178:4 is admissible evidence, and Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude should be denied.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 22, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/Michael Smith/________________
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on August 22, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`to be served via email on the following counsel of record as listed in Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Registration No. 50,474
`GHrycyszyn-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Registration No. 36,149
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Edmund J. Walsh, Registration No. 32,950
`EWalsh-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Joshua Miller, admitted pro hac vice
`Joshua.Miller@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___/Michael Smith/__________
`Michael H. Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`i
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket