`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Date: December 10, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On June 4, 2021, Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–21 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’657 patent”).
`
`See Paper 2 (“Pet.”); Paper 5 (Notice of Filing Date). Concurrently,
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder seeking to join Applied Materials, Inc.
`
`v. Demaray LLC, IPR2021-00104 (the “Applied Materials IPR”). Paper 4
`
`(the “Motion” or “Mot.”). Inter partes review was instituted in the Applied
`
`Materials IPR on May 11, 2021. See Applied Materials IPR, Paper 13
`
`(PTAB May 11, 2021) (the “Applied Materials IPR Institution Decision”).
`
`The Petition here is substantively identical to the petition on which inter
`
`partes review was instituted in the Applied Materials IPR. See Mot. 3
`
`(stating that the petition filed in this proceeding is substantively identical to
`
`the petition filed in the Applied Materials IPR and contains identical
`
`grounds, analysis, exhibits, and relies upon the same expert declarants and
`
`declarations). Demaray LLC (“Demaray” or “Patent Owner”) did not file a
`
`preliminary response to the Petition or an opposition to the Motion.
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). An inter
`
`partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in
`
`the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). And if we determine that a party has filed a
`
`petition that warrants institution of an inter partes review, we may join that
`
`party to another instituted inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we
`
`conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the
`
`Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`
`instituted as to the Challenged Claims of the ’657 patent on the grounds
`
`raised in the Petition. This is not a final decision as to patentability of claims
`
`for which inter partes review is instituted. Any final decision will be based
`
`on the record, as fully developed during trial. We also grant the unopposed
`
`Motion and join Petitioner to the Applied Materials IPR (IPR2021-00104).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’657 Patent
`
`The ’657 patent, titled “Biased Pulse DC Reactive Sputtering of
`
`Oxide Films,” issued June 3, 2008, from Application No. 10/954,182, filed
`
`October 1, 2004. Ex. 1001, codes (10), (12), (21), (22), (45), (54). The ’657
`
`patent “relates to deposition of oxide and oxynitride films and, in particular,
`
`to deposition of oxide and oxynitride films by pulsed DC reactive
`
`sputtering.” Id. at 1:11–13. The ’657 patent discloses that RF sputtering has
`
`been typically used to deposit oxide dielectric films but arcing can occur
`
`between sputtering target tiles used to make such films, which causes
`
`contamination in the deposited films. Id. at 2:25–30. The ’657 patent
`
`further states that reactors for RF sputtering, particularly their power
`
`systems, are complicated. Id. at 2:30–38. The ’657 patent discloses that
`
`reactive dc magnetron sputtering of nonconductive oxides is done rarely
`
`because insulating surfaces accumulate charge during deposition that results
`
`in arcing, damage to the sputtering power supply, and the production of
`
`particles that degrade the properties of deposited oxide films. Id. at 4:48–57.
`
`Figure 1A of the ’657 patent is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`Figure 1A depicts a pulsed DC sputtering reactor.
`
`
`
`The ’657 patent describes reactor apparatus 10 for sputtering material from
`
`target 12. Id. at 5:13–15. Magnet 20 is used to scan across the top of the
`
`target 12, which reduces local erosion of target 12 during sputtering. Id. at
`
`5:35, 8:57–66. Substrate 16 is opposite and parallel to target 12. Id. at
`
`5:29–30. The substrate 16 is capacitively coupled to electrode 17 via
`
`insulator 54. Id. at 5:32–36. Electrode 17 can be coupled to RF power
`
`supply 18. Id. at 5:34–35. The ’657 patent explains that RF power supply
`
`18 is used to avoid columnar structures in a deposited film, which can be
`
`detrimental for optical wave guide applications. Id. at 5:66–6:6. The ’657
`
`patent discloses that target 12 functions as a cathode when power is applied
`
`to the target 12, which creates plasma 53. Id. at 5:30–32.
`
`Target 12 is electrically coupled through filter 15 to pulsed DC power
`
`supply 14. Id. at 5:25–26. The ’657 patent discloses that the polarity of the
`
`power supplied to target 12 by pulsed DC power supply 14 oscillates
`
`between negative and positive potentials. Id. at 5:36–39. According to the
`
`’657 patent, the insulating layer on the surface of target 12 discharges during
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`the positive period, which prevents arcing. Id. at 5:39–41. The ’657 patent
`
`discloses that the pulsing frequency must exceed a critical frequency, which
`
`depends on a target material, cathode current, and reverse time. Id. at 5:41–
`
`43.
`
`Reactor apparatus 10 further includes filter 15, which prevents the RF
`
`power supply from coupling to into pulsed DC power supply 14. Id. at
`
`5:56–57. According to the ’657 patent, filter 15 can be a rejection filter,
`
`such as a 2 MHz band rejection filter when a 2 MHz power supply is used
`
`for RF power supply 18. Id. at 5:57–61. The ’657 patent discloses that the
`
`band width of filter 15 can be approximately 100 kHz. Id. at 5:61–63.
`
`B. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the Challenged Claims, claims 1 and 2 are independent and are
`
`reproduced below with bracketed material and formatting added.
`
`1[a]. A method of depositing a film on an insulating
`substrate, comprising:
`
`[b] providing a process gas between a conductive target and
`the substrate;
`
`[c] providing pulsed DC power to the target through a
`narrow band rejection filter such that the target alternates
`between positive and negative voltages;
`
`[d] providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to
`the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate;
`
`[e] providing a magnetic field to the target; and
`
`[f] reconditioning the target;
`
`[g] wherein reconditioning the target includes reactive
`sputtering in the metallic mode and then reactive sputtering in
`the poison mode.
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:2–14.
`
`2[a]. A method of depositing an insulating film on a
`substrate, comprising:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`[b] providing a process gas between a target and a substrate;
`
`[c] providing pulsed DC power to the target through a
`narrow band rejection filter such that the voltage on the target
`alternates between positive and negative voltages;
`
`[d] providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow
`band rejection filter to the substrate; and
`
`[e] providing a magnetic field to the target;
`
`[f] wherein an oxide material is deposited on the substrate,
`and the insulating film is formed by reactive sputtering in a
`mode between a metallic mode and a poison mode.
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:16–27.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–21 of the ’657 patent are unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds, which are the same grounds asserted in the
`
`Applied Materials IPR (Pet. 1, 4–5):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis1 Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Barber,2 Hirose3
`
`§ 103
`
`2–4, 6, 8, 10–12, 21
`
`Barber, Hirose, Dogheche4
`
`§ 103
`
`5, 7
`
`Barber, Hirose, Safi5
`
`§ 103
`
`9
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the
`’657 patent has an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the
`applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of § 103.
`2 US 6,342,134 B1, issued Jan. 29, 2002 (Ex. 1005).
`3 US 6,485,602 B2, issued Nov. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006).
`4 E. Dogheche, Growth and Optical Characterization of Aluminum Nitride
`Thin Films Deposited on Silicon by Radio-Frequency Sputtering, Appl.
`Phys. Lett. 74, 1209 (1999) (Ex. 1029).
`5 I. Safi, A Novel Reactive Magnetron Sputtering Technique for
`Producing Insulating Oxides of Metal Alloys and Other Compound
`Thin Films, Surface and Coatings Tech. 135, 48 (2000) (Ex. 1039).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis1 Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Barber, Hirose, Aokura6
`
`§ 103
`
`12, 13
`
`Barber, Hirose, Segal7
`
`§ 103
`
`14–18
`
`Barber, Hirose, Segal, Sakawaki8
`
`§ 103
`
`Barber, Hirose, Sill9
`
`§ 103
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Barber, Hirose, Sellers10
`
`§ 103
`
`1
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind11
`
`§ 103
`
`2–4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 21
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Dogheche
`
`§ 103
`
`5, 7
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Safi
`
`§ 103
`
`9
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Aokura
`
`§ 103
`
`12, 13
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Segal
`
`§ 103
`
`14–18
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Segal,
`Sakawaki
`
`§ 103
`
`19
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Sill
`
`§ 103
`
`20
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Sellers
`
`§ 103
`
`1
`
`In support of its unpatentability arguments, Petitioner relies on the
`
`declaration of Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`6 JP H10102247 A, published Apr. 21, 1998 (Ex. 1068) ((English translation
`(pp. 1–12); Verified Statement of Translation (p. 12); Japanese language
`document (pp. 14–24).
`7 US 2001/0047838 A1, published Dec. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1069).
`8 US 2001/0031383 A1, published Oct. 18, 2001 (Ex. 1043).
`9 US 6,284,110 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1057).
`10 US 5,651,865, issued July 29, 1997 (Ex. 1007).
`11 A. Belkind et al., Pulsed-DC Reactive Sputtering of Dielectrics:
`Pulsing Parameter Effects, Society of Vacuum Coaters, 43rd Annual
`Technical Conference Proceedings, 86 (2000) (Ex. 1008).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner identifies the following two inter partes proceedings as
`
`related matters involving the ’657 patent: (1) Applied Materials, Inc. v.
`
`Demaray LLC, IPR2021-00104 (PTAB) (institution granted) and (2) Applied
`
`Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, IPR2021-00106 (PTAB) (institution
`
`denied). Petitioner also states it filed a petition seeking inter partes review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276. Pet. 2; see also Intel Corp. v. Demaray LLC,
`
`IPR2021-01030, Paper 2 (petition challenging claims of the ’276 patent).
`
`In addition, Petitioner identifies the following four district court
`
`proceedings as related matters involving both the ’657 patent and
`
`the ’276 patent: (1) Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`
`Case No. 6-20-cv-00636 (W.D. Tex.); (2) Demaray LLC v. Intel
`
`Corporation, Case No. 6-20-cv-00634 (W.D. Tex.); (3) Applied Materials,
`
`Inc. v. Demaray LLC, Case No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.) (terminated); and
`
`(4) Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, Case No. 5-20-cv-09341
`
`(N.D. Cal.). Pet. 2.
`
`E. Real Parties in Interest
`
`
`
`Petitioner identifies Intel Corporation, Applied Materials, Inc.,
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC as
`
`the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 2.
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF THE PETITION
`
`The Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Applied
`
`Materials IPR. See Mot. 3 (stating that the Petition and the Applied
`
`Materials Petition are identical in all substantive respects and that they
`
`include “identical grounds, analysis, and exhibits and rel[y] upon the same
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`expert declarants and declarations”). For the same reasons provided in the
`
`Applied Materials IPR Institution Decision (Applied Materials IPR, Paper
`
`13), which we incorporate expressly herein, we find that Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least
`
`one of the Challenged Claims of the ’657 patent.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF MOTION
`
`Acting under the designation of the Director, we have discretion to
`
`determine whether to join a party to an instituted inter partes review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a). We may join as a party to [an
`
`instituted] inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under
`
`section 311 that, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or
`
`the expiration of the time for filing such a response, warrants the institution
`
`of an inter partes review under section 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). “Any
`
`request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the
`
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner shows that the Motion is timely as it was
`
`filed within one month of the Applied Materials IPR Institution Decision.
`
`See Pet. 1 (stating the Petition is filed within one month of the institution of
`
`the Applied Materials IPR).
`
`In deciding whether to grant a motion for joinder, the Board has
`
`considered (1) Petitioner’s explanation why joinder is appropriate,
`
`(2) whether any new grounds of unpatentability are asserted in the second
`
`petition, (3) what impact, if any, joinder would have on the cost and
`
`schedule for the existing proceeding, and (4) whether granting joinder will
`
`add to the complexity of briefing and/or discovery. See Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 76 (Nov. 2019)
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`(https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (citing Kyocera
`
`Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)).
`
`As for why joinder is appropriate, Petitioner states that joinder will
`
`streamline the proceedings and reduce costs and burden on the parties
`
`without any prejudice to Patent Owner. Mot. 5; see also Mot. 2–3 (stating
`
`that given the duplicative nature of the petitions, maintaining this proceeding
`
`separate from that of the Applied Materials IPR would entail needless
`
`duplication of efforts). Petitioner also explains that there are no new
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the second petition as “the petitions
`
`are identical.” Id. at 4.
`
`Regarding what impact, if any, joinder would have on the cost,
`
`schedule, or complexity of the existing proceeding, Petitioner states that
`
`joinder will simplify briefing and discovery because Petitioner and Applied
`
`Materials will engage in consolidated filings and discovery. Mot. 5.
`
`Petitioner agrees not to make any arguments separate from those advanced
`
`by Petitioner and Applied Materials in the consolidated filings, except for
`
`those that do not involve the other party. Id. at 4. Petitioner further explains
`
`that Petitioner and Applied Materials are using the same expert declarants
`
`who have submitted the same, identical declarations in the proceedings. Id.
`
`Petitioner further states that it and Applied Materials will designate an
`
`attorney to conduct the cross-examinations of any Patent Owner’s witness
`
`and the redirect of any Petitioner or Applied Materials witness without any
`
`additional or separate cross-examination or redirect time. Id. Petitioner also
`
`states that the scheduling order for the Applied IPR will apply for the joined
`
`proceedings. Id. at 6.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`Patent Owner did not file an opposition to the Motion. In view of
`
`Petitioner’s representations, we are persuaded that joinder is appropriate.
`
`We, therefore, grant the Motion.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we determine Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertions that the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’657 patent are unpatentable over the asserted
`
`prior art. Accordingly, inter partes review shall proceed in this case on all
`
`of the grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`
`1348, 1359–60 (2018) (holding that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition);
`
`PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating
`
`the decision whether to institute inter partes review requires “a simple yes-
`
`or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges
`
`included in the petition”).
`
`Our determination in this Decision is not a final determination on either
`
`the patentability of any challenged claims or the construction of any claim
`
`term and, thus, leaves undecided any remaining fact issues necessary to
`
`determine whether sufficient evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence in the final written decision. See Trivascular,
`
`Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “there is a
`
`significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable
`
`likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence at trial”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and
`
`comparing id. § 316(e)).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`We also find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing in support
`
`of its unopposed Motion for Joinder. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s
`
`Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to IPR2021-00104.
`
`VI. ORDER
`
`Upon consideration of the record before us, it is:
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 B2 is instituted with
`
`respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(b), inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 B2
`
`shall commence on the entry date of this Order, and notice is hereby given of
`
`the institution of a trial;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(a), Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is granted, and Petitioner
`
`is joined as a petitioner in IPR2021-00104;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in view of the joinder, all further filings
`
`shall be made only in IPR2021-00104;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted grounds of unpatentability on
`
`which the Board instituted inter partes review in IPR2021-00104 are
`
`unchanged and remain the only instituted grounds;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in IPR2021-00104,
`
`and any modifications thereto, shall govern the schedule of the joined
`
`proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2021-00104, Petitioner will file
`
`each paper, except for any paper that does not involve the other party, as a
`
`single, consolidated filing with Applied Materials, Inc., subject to the page
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, and shall identify such filing as a
`
`consolidated filing;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, for any consolidated filing, if Petitioner
`
`wishes to file an additional paper to address points of disagreement with
`
`Applied Materials, Inc., Petitioner must request authorization from the
`
`Board to file a motion for an additional paper or pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall collectively designate
`
`attorneys with Applied Materials, Inc. to conduct the cross-examination of
`
`any witness produced by Patent Owner and the redirect of any witness
`
`produced by Applied Materials, Inc. and Petitioner, within the timeframes
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) or agreed to by the parties;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall collectively designate
`
`attorneys with Applied Materials, Inc. to present at the oral hearing, if
`
`requested and scheduled, in a consolidated argument;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the caption in IPR2021-00104 shall be
`
`changed to reflect joinder of Petitioner in accordance with the attached
`
`example; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`
`into the record of IPR2021-00104.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`Richard Goldenberg
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Hong Zhong
`Benjamin Hattenbach
`Crawford Wells
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`hzhong@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`mwells@irell.com
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01031
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. and INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-0010412
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`12 Intel Corporation has filed a petition in IPR2021-01031 and has been
`joined as a petitioner in this proceeding
`
`15
`
`