`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 40
`Entered: September 14, 2018
`
`
`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
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Acting Vice Chief Administrative Patent
`Judge, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5; 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with Case IPR2017-01843.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`The parties came before the Board for a regularly scheduled oral
`argument on September 6, 2018. See Paper 36 (trial hearing order). Oral
`argument was heard by Judges Haapala, Arbes, and Chagnon.2 In the
`particular circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(d) to authorize the following additional post-hearing
`briefing.
`Patent Owner is authorized, but not required, to file a sur-reply brief,
`to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22, “Reply”) on or before October 5, 2018.
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply is limited to addressing Petitioner’s arguments
`regarding whether Misra3 teaches that its spacers 23 may be formed of a
`material other than silicon nitride, such as thermally grown silicon dioxide
`(see Reply 2, 4–6 (Section II)).4 Patent Owner’s sur-reply shall be limited to
`four (4) pages, not including the cover sheet or certificate of service. Patent
`Owner is not authorized to introduce any new evidence. Any statements,
`explanations, or arguments presented in the brief may only be supported by
`citations to materials in the current record.
`
`
`2 The transcript for the oral hearing is not yet in the record.
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,960,270, issued Sept. 28, 1999 (Ex. 1204).
`4 We recognize that Patent Owner asserts this argument in Petitioner’s Reply
`is improper in that it allegedly “change[s] Petitioner’s theory of
`unpatentability based on a new argument.” See Paper 27 (Patent Owner’s
`Identification of Improper New Argument in Petitioner’s Reply). We have
`not yet made a determination in this regard, and will address this issue in the
`Final Written Decision. We, however, provide Patent Owner this
`opportunity to respond substantively to Petitioner’s reply argument in the
`event we determine that the arguments presented by Petitioner are within the
`proper scope of reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`If Patent Owner elects not to timely file a brief, Patent Owner will be
`deemed to have waived the right to brief this issue or otherwise be heard on
`this issue before entry of a Final Written Decision.
`No further briefing is authorized at this time.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Dominic E. Massa
`Michael H. Smith
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn
`Richard F. Giunta
`Edmund J. Walsh
`Joshua J. Miller
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`GHrycyszyn-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`EWalsh-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`joshua.miller@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`3
`
`
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
