`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01607
`Patent 7,620,800 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXTEND ITS PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE DEADLINE UNTIL AFTER THE RESOLUTION
`OF ITS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI CONCERNING
`WHETHER SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY MAY BE ASSERTED
`IN INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
` I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`SRMT Has Shown No Basis For A Stay .............................................. 2
`A.
`1. SRMT’s Sovereign Immunity Argument Has Been
` Heard and Rejected ......................................................................... 2
`2. There is No Good Cause For a Stay ................................................. 4
`3. SRMT’s Mischaracterizations of the Record Do Not
`Support a Stay .................................................................................. 6
`B. The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Mylan is Controlling ........................ 8
`C. SRMT has Waived the Right to Assert a Defense of
`Sovereign Immunity ............................................................................... 8
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
` Page(s)
`Cases
`DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 808, 811-12 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (Bryson, J.) .................................. 5
`LSI Corp. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn.
`IPR2017-01068, Paper 19, PTAB, Dec. 19, 2017 ................................................ 8
`Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Allergan, Inc.
` IPR2016-01127, Paper 129, PTAB, Feb. 23, 2018 ............................................. 3
`Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Allergan, Inc.
` IPR2016-01127, Paper 137, PTAB, Mar. 22, 2018 ............................................. 1
`Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Allergan, Inc.
` IPR2016-01127, Paper 142, PTAB, Nov. 30, 2018 ............................................ 4
`Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Allergan, Inc.
` IPR2016-01127, Paper 81, PTAB, Sept. 22, 2017 .............................................. 1
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 1
`SRC Labs, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 1:17cv-01172-LO-JFA, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2017) ................... 2, 9
`SRC Labs, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR, ECF No. 117 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2018) .................. 6
`Xilinx Inc., v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`IPR2018-01395, Paper 11, PTAB, Oct. 24, 2018 ............................................. 3, 7
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(2) ................................................................................................ 8
`Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(1)......................................................................................... 4, 8
`ii
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`The Supreme Court, 2017 Term – The Statistics
` 132 HARV. L. REV. 447 (2018) ............................................................................ 5
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`The request of Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“SRMT”) to delay these
`proceedings should be denied because it has already been decided that SRMT is
`not immune from IPR proceedings, and SRMT has waived any argument that it
`could be immune by asserting the patents at issue here in Federal Court. SRMT
`therefore cannot show any good cause to depart from the ordinary rules governing
`IPRs, or any likelihood of harm from complying with those rules.
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`On September 8, 2017, Allergan, Inc. transferred numerous prescription
`drug patents to SRMT in an effort to shield the patents from IPR proceedings.
`IPR2016-01127, Paper 81 at 7, EX. 2086, EX. 2103. In that case, the Board held
`that IPR proceedings are administrative enforcement actions that do not invoke the
`right of sovereign immunity, and ordered that the case proceed. IPR2016-01127,
`Paper 137. SRMT appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that
`sovereign immunity “does not extend to actions brought by the federal
`government,” that an “IPR is more like an agency enforcement action than a civil
`suit brought by a private party,” and that therefore SRMT may not rely on
`sovereign immunity to shield itself from IPR proceedings. Saint Regis Mohawk
`Tribe v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 896 F.3d 1322, 1325, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(“Mylan”). On October 28, 2018, SRMT’s petition for rehearing en banc in that
`1
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`case was denied without dissent, Mylan, ECF No. 170, and on November 13, 2018,
`the Federal Circuit denied SRMT’s motion to stay the issuance of its mandate
`pending the result of SRMT’s proposed petition for a writ of certiorari from the
`Supreme Court, Mylan, ECF No. 174.
`Similar to the Mylan case, and in another effort to shield patents from IPR
`proceedings, SRMT obtained title to the patents challenged here via a blanket
`transfer of 39 patents from SRC Labs, LLC (“SRC”). See Ex. 1072. SRMT and
`SRC then jointly asserted six of those patents against Microsoft in district court
`litigation. SRC Labs, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:17cv-01172-LO-JFA, ECF
`No. 1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2017). Microsoft subsequently filed 10 IPR petitions
`challenging those six asserted patents, initiating the proceedings that are the
`subject of SRMT’s motion.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`SRMT Has Shown No Basis For A Stay
`1.
`SRMT’s Sovereign Immunity Argument Has Been Heard
`and Rejected
`SRMT’s principal argument for a delay in these proceedings is that “[t]he
`Tribe’s sovereign immunity is a threshold issue that must be addressed before the
`IPR may proceed because tribal sovereign immunity is not merely a liability
`defense, it is an ‘immunity from suit’ that ‘is effectively lost if a case is
`erroneously permitted to go to trial.’” Motion at 5. The problem with that
`2
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`contention, however, is that the question of SRMT’s immunity from an IPR
`proceeding has already been addressed, squarely, by a panel of the PTAB and a
`panel of the Federal Circuit, each of which has held that no such immunity applies.
`See Mylan, supra; IPR2016-01127, Paper 129.
`That is why, since the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Mylan, no tribunal
`approached by SRMT for a stay has granted one. The Federal Circuit in Mylan
`summarily denied SRMT’s request for a stay of the mandate pending a petition for
`certiorari, Mylan, ECF No. 174. Similarly, the panel in Xilinx, Inc. v. Saint Regis
`Mohawk Tribe, IPR2018-01395 denied a joint request to extend SRMT’s
`preliminary response deadline on the ground that “[g]iven that the Federal Circuit
`has already issued its decision in [Mylan], we are not persuaded that the parties
`have demonstrated good cause for an extension of the deadline to file the Patent
`Owner’s preliminary response.” IPR2018-01395, Paper 11 at 2. SRMT makes no
`attempt to show that the circumstances here require a different result.
`Thus, the question of the applicability of SRMT’s tribal sovereign immunity
`to IPRs is no longer a “threshold issue” to be decided. It has been decided, against
`SRMT, so such sovereign immunity can no longer be a basis for interfering with
`the regular adjudication of Microsoft’s petitions.
`SMRT also contends that “a stay will preserve the status quo while this
`important issue is decided,” Motion at 6, but the exact opposite is true. The status
`3
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`quo is that SRMT’s tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in an IPR. Indeed,
`the IPR proceedings underlying the decision in Mylan are continuing to an Oral
`Hearing now scheduled for January 11, 2019, see IPR2016-01127, Paper 142, and
`the IPR proceeding brought by Xilinx against SRMT is continuing along the usual
`schedule, IPR2018-01395, Paper 11. SRMT has made no effort to show why the
`Board should treat the proceedings here any differently. SRMT thus asks not to
`maintain the status quo, but for special treatment, and an exception to the normal
`rules that ordinarily apply.
`A. There is No Good Cause For a Stay
`SRMT further argues that “[g]ood cause is present here because the Tribe
`would be irreparably harmed if its Preliminary Response Deadline is not extended
`because, as noted above, sovereign immunity is immunity from suit, not a defense
`to liability.” Motion at 7. That is incorrect. SRMT has no immunity to these
`IPRs, so it will not be harmed by complying with the normal rules of an IPR, such
`as submitting a preliminary response in the time frame set forth in the rules.
`Moreover, SRMT’s “good cause” argument has already been decided
`against it. For example, in Mylan, the standard SRMT was required to satisfy in
`order to obtain a stay of the Federal Circuit’s mandate included a showing of good
`cause, see Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(1), and SRMT made the
`same “irreparable harm” argument to satisfy that requirement that it makes here,
`4
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Mylan, ECF No. 171 at 6-7. The argument was rejected by the Federal Circuit, so
`it should be rejected here as well.
`Indeed, SRMT cannot show even a likelihood of harm. The unanimous
`ruling in Mylan affirmed a unanimous decision of the Board, and SRMT’s petition
`for en banc rehearing was denied without dissent. SRMT has therefore not been
`able to find a single judge to accept its immunity argument. And, while SRC
`provides various statistics regarding the timing surrounding the filing a petition for
`certiorari (Motion at 3-4), it conveniently leaves out that the Supreme Court
`typically grants only around 4% of such writs in a term. See, e.g., Ex. 1071, The
`Supreme Court, 2017 Term – The Statistics, 132 HARV L. REV. 447, 455 (2018).
`SRMT has had its day in court on the tribal sovereign immunity issue, and it
`lost. The extremely low likelihood that it can reverse that loss in the Supreme
`Court coupled with the complete lack of support for SRMT’s position confirms
`that there is no likelihood of injury if its motion is denied, and no good cause to
`extend its preliminary response deadlines.1
`1 Moreover, while SRMT may have a right to seek review of the decision in Mylan
`
`by the Supreme Court, now that the mandate in Mylan has issued (Mylan, ECF No.
`175) SRMT is collaterally estopped from asserting its sovereign immunity
`argument in other cases. See DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
`5
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`SRMT’s Mischaracterizations of the Record Do
`B.
`Not Support a Stay
`SRMT’s additional arguments do nothing to undo that failure. SRMT’s
`assertion that “the requested extension will not prejudice Microsoft,” Motion at 8,
`is simply wrong. Absent some justification to depart from the rules, which does
`not exist here, Microsoft is entitled to have its petitions considered in the ordinary
`course, just as any other IPR petitioner is. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (the rules of the
`Board “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
`every proceeding”). Moreover, SRMT has asserted these patents against Microsoft
`in district court, on the flimsiest of evidence, so Microsoft has a significant interest
`in demonstrating the invalidity of the asserted patents in a timely manner.
`As for the assertion that Microsoft’s statement to the district court that the
`potential for a certiorari petition favored a stay somehow applies here, Motion at 8,
`that is not so. Microsoft argued that a stay should be granted in the district court
`litigation regardless of the outcome of any appeals, due to the significant effort
`both the parties and the Court would be required to undertake in the near term and
`70 F. Supp. 3d 808, 811-12 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (Bryson, J.) (collateral estoppel is
`
`“not affected by the fact that an appeal has been taken from the decision.”) This is
`yet another reason why SRMT cannot show good cause.
`6
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`the possibility of significant efficiencies, but also noted that SRMT’s
`characterization of its appeal as a threshold matter only counseled in favor of
`granting a stay of the litigation. SRC Labs, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:18-cv-
`00321-JLR, ECF No. 117 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2018). Those considerations are
`not implicated by the request for relief at issue here, as it is the Board’s resolution
`of Microsoft’s IPR petitions that will create efficiencies.
`And SMRT’s assertion that Microsoft “was previously ‘willing to enter into
`a mutual stay of the IPRs pending [the sovereign immunity appeal] if SRC and
`[Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe] are willing to stay all district court proceedings on the
`patents that are the subject of those IPR,’” Motion at 8, is misleading. Microsoft
`never stated it was willing to enter into a mutual stay of the IPRs “pending [the
`sovereign immunity appeal]”. It stated that, if the district court litigation was
`stayed as well, Microsoft was willing to agree to a “stay of the IPRs pending the
`Federal Circuit’s resolution of the rehearing petition”. EX2023 (emphasis added).
`That resolution has now occurred, and the mandate in Mylan has now issued.
`There is, therefore, no basis for a delay of the IPRs.
`Finally, the statement in SRMT’s brief that “the Board has extended the
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response deadline in every proceeding where sovereign
`immunity was raised,” Motion at 7, is factually inaccurate, as the Board in Xilinx,
`Inc. v. SRMT denied SRMT’s request, based on sovereign immunity, to extend the
`7
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`preliminary response. See IPR2018-01395, Paper 11 at 2. The statement is also
`misleading, as most of the IPR proceedings SRMT cites involved assertions of
`State sovereign immunity to IPRs, an argument SRMT is not entitled to make and
`an issue not yet resolved by the Federal Circuit. See IPR2017-01186; IPR2017-
`00572; and IPR2017-01338.
`B.
`The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Mylan is Controlling
`SMRT also argues that the Federal Circuit’s refusal to stay the mandate in
`Mylan is not controlling here, supposedly because “the standard to stay a mandate
`and the standard to extend the deadline for a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`are not the same.” Motion at 8. That conclusion is legally erroneous. While the
`two standards may not be identical, they both require a showing of “good cause”.
`Compare Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(1) with 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(2). As demonstrated
`above, the Federal Circuit already rejected SRMT’s arguments as to good cause
`when SMRT asked for a stay of the mandate. It would be extraordinary, after that
`decision, for the Board to come to a different conclusion based on the exact same
`facts and arguments.
`C.
`SRMT has Waived the Right to Assert a Defense of Sovereign
`Immunity
`Finally, no appeal to the Supreme Court can affect these proceedings in any
`event, because SRMT waived any right to assert sovereign immunity in these
`8
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`proceedings by filing suit on the patents that are the subject of these IPRs. For
`example, in IPR2017-01068, Paper 19, an expanded panel of the Board held that
`“the filing of an action in federal court alleging infringement effectively waives
`Patent Owner’s Eleventh Amendment immunity defense.” Id. at 6. That decision
`was, of course, directed to State sovereign immunity, but there is no basis for
`concluding that an Indian Tribe possesses any greater sovereign immunity than
`expressly provided to the States under the Eleventh Amendment. The Board’s
`holding in IPR2017-01068 should therefore apply here.
`In this case, SRMT and SRC filed a complaint against Microsoft on October
`18, 2017, alleging infringement of the patents at issue in these proceedings. SRC
`Labs, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:17cv-01172-LO-JFA, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Va.
`Oct. 18, 2017). By joining that suit, SRMT waived any right to assert sovereign
`immunity in this IPR. Thus, the result of SRMT’s proposed appeal to the Supreme
`Court is irrelevant to whether the Board has jurisdiction in these proceedings, and
`can therefore not be the basis for good cause to delay these proceedings.
`CONCLUSION
`Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, SRMT’s motion should be denied.
` Dated: December 7, 2018
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`10
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,225,324 (the “324 Patent”)
`1002
`Original File History of 324 Patent
`Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone
`1003
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Harold Stone
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800 (the “800 Patent”)
`1006
`Original File History of 800 Patent
`1007
`Duncan A. Buell, Jeffrey M. Arnold, and Walter J. Kleinfelder. Splash
`2: FPGAs in a Custom Computing Machine. IEEE Computer Society
`Press, 1996 (“Splash2”)
`1008
`R.J. Lipton and D.P. Lopresti, "A Systolic Array for Rapid String
`Comparison," Proc. 1985 Chapel Hill Conf. VLSI, Computer Science
`Press, Rockville, Md., 1985, pp. 363-376 (“Rapid String Comparison”)
`1009
`C. Ebeling, D. Cronquist, P. Franklin, J. Secosky and, S. Berg,
`“Mapping Applications to the RaPiD Configurable Architecture”, in
`Proc. of Int. Symp. on Field-Programmable Custom Computing
`Machines (FCCM), pp. 106–115, 1997 (“RaPiD”)
`1010
`Gaudiot, Jean-Luc, Data-Driven Multicomputers in Digital Signal
`Processing, 1987, IEEE, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 75, No. 9, at
`1220-1234 (“Gaudiot”)
`1011
`Rencher, et al., “Automated Target Recognition on SPLASH 2”, IEEE
`Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computer Machines,
`1997, 192-200 (“Chunky SLD”)
`1012
`Roccatano, et al., “Development of a parallel molecular dynamics code
`on SIMD Computers: Algorithm for use of pair list criterion,” J.
`Comp. Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 7, 1998, 685-694 (“Roccantano”)
`11
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1013
`Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Case No. 1:17-cv-
`01172 (LO/JFA), Jan. 19, 2018
`1014
`US Patent 6,434,687 to Huppenthal
`1015
`Kung, et al., “Systolic arrays for VLSI,” SIAM, 1978, Sparse Matrix
`Proceedings, 256-282
`1016
`H. T. Kung, “Why systolic architectures?” IEEE Computer, Jan., 1982,
`37-46
`1017
`Gokhale, et al., “Building and using a highly parallel programmable
`logic array,” IEEE Computer, Vol. 24, no. 1, 81-89
`1018 Mertzios, et al., “Fast implementation of 3-D filters via systolic array
`processors,” Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 89,
`1997, 335-349
`US Patent 5,956,518 to DeHon et al.
`1019
`1020
`US Patent 5,274,832 to Khan
`1021
`Kung, et al, Wavefront Array Processor: Language, Architecture, and
`Applications, IEEE Transactions On Computers, Vol. C-31, No. 11,
`Nov. 1982, 1054-1066
`1022
`US Patent Publication 2001/0014937 to Huppenthal, et al.
`1023
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cluster
`1024 Moreira et al., “High performance computing with the array package
`for Java: A case study using data mining”, Proc. 1999 Supercomputing
`Conf., Nov. 13-19, 1999, 1-15
`1025 Microsoft Computer Dictionary (1997)
`http://www.dictionary.com/browse/data-mining
`1026
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data-mining
`1027
`12
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1028
`Excerpt from Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Case
`No. 1:17-cv-01172 (LO/JFA), Jan. 19, 2018, ’324 patent, claim 22
`1029
`Bayat, “Bioinformatics,” British Medical Journal, vol. 324, 27 April,
`2002, at 1018-1022
`1030
`Caulfield, et al, “A cloud-scale acceleration architecture,” Proc. 49th
`Micro, Oct. 15-19, 1996, 1-13
`1031
`Excerpt from Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Case
`No. 1:17-cv-01172 (LO/JFA), Jan. 19, 2018, ’324 patent, claim 23
`1032
`Peterson, William H., and Frank M. Strong. General biochemistry.
`Prentice-Hall, Inc; New York, 1953
`1033
`Cornell, et al., “A second generation force field for the simulation of
`proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules,” J. Am. Chem Soc.,
`vol. 117, 1995, 5179-5197
`Hartenstein, et al., “A reconfigurable data-driven ALU for Xputers,”
`1034
`Proc. of the 1994 IEEE Workshop on FPGAs for CCMs, April 10-13,
`1994, at 139-146
`1035
`Xilinx XC4000E and XC4000X Series Field Programmable Gate
`Arrays,” May 14, 1999 Ver. 1.6
`Brazma, et al., “Predicting gene regulatory elements in silico on a
`1036
`genomic scale,” Genome Research, 8, 1202-1215
`1037 Marcotte, “Computational genetics: finding protein function by
`nonhomology methods.” Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol.
`10, no. 3, 359-365
`Searls, “Linguistic approaches to biological sequences,”
`1038
`Bioinformatics, vol. 13, no. 4, Aug. 1, 1997, 333-344
`Hoang D.T., Lopresti D.P, “FPGA implementation of systolic
`1039
`sequence alignment,” Grünbacher H., Hartenstein R.W. (eds) Field-
`13
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`Programmable Gate Arrays: Architecture and Tools for Rapid
`Prototyping. FPL 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 705.
`Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 183-191 (“Hoang”)
`1040
`Jones, “Protein sequence and structure comparison on massively
`parallel computers,” Inter. J. of Supercomputer Applications, vol. 6,
`no.2, 1992, 138-146
`A. DeHon, “The density advantage of reconfigurable computing,”
`1041
`Computer, Vol: 33, Issue: 4, Apr 2000, pp. 41-49
`E. Lemoine, et al., “High speed pattern matching in genetic data base
`1042
`with reconfigurable hardware,” ISMB Proceedings 1994, pp. 269-275
`A. E. Abdallah, et al. “Formal development of a reconfigurable tool
`1043
`for parallel DNA matching, 5th Annual. Symp. On Field Programmable
`Custom Computing Machines, April 16-18, 1997, pp. 24-33
`J. Schmutz, et al., “Quality assessment of the human genome
`1044
`sequence,” Nature. vol. 429, May 27, 2004, 365–368
`“Xilinx FPGAs: A Technical Overview for the First-Time User,”
`1045
`XAPP 097 December 12, 1998 (Version 1.3)
`CCITT T.81, Information Technology – Digital compression and
`1046
`coding of continuous-tone still images – requirements and guidelines,
`9/92 (“JPEG”)
`ISO/IEC 11172-2, MPEG Standard, First edition, 1993-08-01
`1047
`(“MPEG-2”)
`K. Ramchandran, et al., “Rate-Distortion optimal fast thresholding
`1048
`with complete JPEG/MPEG decoder compatibility,” IEEE Trans. on
`Image Processing, vol. 3, no. 5, Sept. 1994, 700-704
`Spanos, et al., “Security for real-time MPEG compressed video in
`1049
`distributed multimedia applications,” Proc. of 1996 Conf. on
`Computers and Communications, March 27-29, 1996, 72-78
`14
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1050
`Shojania, et al., “Experiences with MPEG-4 multimedia streaming,”
`ACM Multimedia ‘01, Sept. 30, 2001, 492-494
`1051
`Villasenor, et al., “Configurable computing solutions for automatic
`target recognition,” Proc. of the 1996 IEEE Workshop on FPGAs for
`CCMs, April 17-19, 1996, at 70-79
`1052
`Jean, et al., “Accelerating an IR automatic tracking recognition
`application with FPGAs,” 1999 IEEE Proc. of Field-Programmable
`CCMS, April 23, 1999, 290-291
`1053
`Heller, et al., “Molecular dynamics simulation on a parallel computer,”
`Molecular Simulation, vol. 5, 1990, pp. 133-165, (“Heller”)
`1054 McCammon, et al., “Dynamics of folded proteins.” Nature vol. 267,
`June 16, 1977, 585-590
`Dokholyan, et al., “Discrete molecular dynamics studies of the folding
`1055
`of a protein-like model”, Folding and Design, vol. 3, no. 6, 1998, 577-
`587
`Lippert, et al., “Hyper-systolic parallel computing,” IEEE Trans. on
`1056
`Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 9, no. 2, Feb. 1998, 97-108
`Bala, et al., “Application of PFortran and Co-Array Fortran in the
`1057
`parallelization of the GROMOS96 molecular dynamics module,”
`Scientific Programming, vol. 9. 2001, 61-68
`Singh, et al., “MorphoSys: a reconfigurable architecture for
`1058
`multimedia applications,” 1998 IEEE Proc. of Brazilian Circuit
`Design, Oct. 3, 1998, 134-139
`1059
`The New IEEE Standard of Dictionary Electrical and Electronics
`Terms, 1994
`The Splash 2 Processor and Applications
`1060
`15
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1061
`Jeong, et al., “VLSI array algorithms and architectures for RSA
`modular multiplication”, IEEE Trans. on VLSI, vol. 5, no. 2, June
`1997, pp. 211-217. (“Jeong”)
`1062
`Even, S., “Systolic array for modular multiplication,” US Patent
`5,101,431, filed Dec. 14, 1990, issued Mar. 31, 1992, 1:43-53.
`1063 Walter, C. D., “Systolic modular multiplication,” IEEE Trans. on
`Computers, Vol. 42, No. 3, March 1993, pp. 376-378, 376.
`http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plane.
`1064
`1065
`Declaration of Katherine Zimmerman
`Declaration of Jim Mullins
`1066
`1067
`Declaration of Rachel Watters
`Declaration of Stephen Trimberger
`1068
`1069
`Plaintiff’s Preliminary Claim Constructions, SRC Labs – Microsoft
`1070
`Official Copyright Registration of Splash2 (Ex. 1007)
`1071
`[NEW] The Supreme Court, 2017 Term – The Statistics, 132 Harv. L.
`Rev. 447, 455 (2018)
`1072
`[NEW] SRC Patent Assignment Sheet, August 2nd, 2017
`
`16
`
`
`
`Opposition to Mot. to Extend Prelim. Resp. Deadline
`IPR2018-01607
`U.S. Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 7, 2018, a copy of the foregoing document
`has been served via e-mail on the following:
`Christopher Evans (cevans@shorechan.com)
`Alfonso Chan (achan@shorechan.com)
`Joseph DePumpo (jdepumpo@shorechan.com)
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
` Dated: December 7, 2018
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
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
