UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Patent No. 6,968,248
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via PTAB E2E
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................... 4
`
`A. Discretionary Denial of Review Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 .............................. 4
`
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................. 5
`
`III. EACH OF THE SIX FINTIV I FACTORS WEIGHS STRONGLY IN FAVOR
`OF DENYING REVIEW UNDER SECTION 314 ................................................... 7
`
`A. Eight District Court Litigations Are Pending Between Patent Owner and
`Third Parties That Involve the ’248 Patent ........................................................... 9
`
`B. Fintiv I, Factor 1 Favors Discretionary Denial: No Stay Motion Is Pending
`in the EDTX and WDTX Proceedings, and No Evidence Exists that One May
`Be Entered ........................................................................................................... 10
`
`C. Fintiv I, Factor 2 Favors Discretionary Denial: The Trial Dates in the
`EDTX and WDTX Litigations Are Several Months Before the Board’s
`Projected Statutory Deadline for An FWD ......................................................... 14
`
`1. The Trial Dates in the WDTX and EDTX Litigations Are Two Months
`and Five Months Before the Board’s Projected Statutory Deadline for an
`FWD, Respectively ........................................................................................ 15
`
`Petitioner’s Speculation About Volatility in Case Schedules and the
`2.
`COVID-19 Pandemic Has Previously Been Debunked and Shot Down by
`the Board and District Court .......................................................................... 17
`
`D. Fintiv I, Factor 3 Strongly Favors Discretionary Denial: There Has Been
`Immense Investment in the Parallel Proceedings by the Court and Non-Party
`Defendants .......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Patent Owner and Non-Party Defendants Have Expended Immense
`1.
`Resources in the Parallel Proceedings ........................................................... 20
`
`E. Fintiv I, Factor 4 Strongly Favors Discretionary Denial: There Is Complete
`Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in the Parallel Proceedings,
`Including Asserted Claims, Asserted Prior Art References, and Identical
`Invalidity Arguments, with Non-Party Defendants Committing to Raising These
`Same Grounds, References, and Arguments in the Parallel Proceedings .......... 26
`
`1. There Is Complete Overlap as to Claims and Prior Art References
`Raised in the Petition and in the Parallel Proceedings .................................. 26
`
`2. There Is Complete Overlap as to Asserted Grounds and Arguments ... 28
`
`i
`
`

`

`3. None of the Non-Party Defendants in Parallel District Court
`Proceedings Has Committed to Not Asserting the Same Prior Art References
`or Grounds ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`F. Fintiv I, Factor 5 Favors Discretionary Denial: Petitioner Has Failed to
`Explain Why Addressing the Same or Substantially Same Validity Issues In
`This IPR Would Not Be Duplicative of Those Involved in Parallel District
`Court Proceedings ............................................................................................... 31
`
`G. Fintiv I, Factor 6: Other Circumstances Further Favor Non-Institution,
`Including Additional Prior Art References Raised in the Parallel District Court
`Proceedings ......................................................................................................... 32
`
`1. The Petition’s Grounds Are Weak ........................................................ 33
`
`H. Balancing the Six Fintiv I Factors Weighs Heavily in Favor of Denying the
`Petition on a Discretionary Basis ........................................................................ 33
`
`IV. THE PETITION’S ASSERTED GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY
`FAILS: CLAIMS 1-22 OF THE ’248 PATENT ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER
`SCHULZE IN VIEW OF GUPTA .......................................................................... 34
`
`A. Overview of the ’248 Patent ........................................................................ 34
`
`B. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 36
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 36
`
`D. Gupta Teaches Away from Extending Its Local Scheduling to All Tools in
`a Fab, and Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Would Have No Reasonable
`Expectation of Success ....................................................................................... 36
`
`1.
`
`Schulze’s MES Covers Every Tool in a Semiconductor Fab ............... 37
`
`2. Unlike Schulze, Gupta’s Local Optimization Focuses on Individual
`Machines and Processes to Conserve Resources ........................................... 38
`
`E. Gupta and Schulze, Alone or In Combination, Do Not Teach or Suggest
`Reactive Scheduling ........................................................................................... 43
`
`1. Gupta’s Local Optimization Is Predictive, Not Reactive ..................... 43
`
`2. Gupta’s Six Minute Time Steps Do Not Permit Reactive Scheduling . 46
`
`F. Claim 14 ...................................................................................................... 47
`
`Schulze and Gupta, Alone or in Combination, Do Not Teach or
`1.
`Suggest a Plurality of Scheduling Agents ..................................................... 48
`
`G. Claims 6, 15 & 18 ........................................................................................ 49
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Schulze and Gupta, Alone or in Combination, Do Not Teach or
`1.
`Suggest “Sending an Indication of the Occurrence to A Publisher,”
`“Publishing the Cccurrence from the Publisher to a Subscribing Listener”
`and “Publishing the Occurrence from the Publisher to a Subscribing
`Listener”......................................................................................................... 49
`
`H. Claims 2-5, 7-13, 16, 17 and 19-22 ............................................................. 52
`
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (PTAB July 13, 2015) ................................................7, 9
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ................................ 5, 18, 38
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020) ............................................. 6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00203, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2020) .................................. 24, 32, 36
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00122, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020) ........................................... 29
`
`Code200, UAB v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021) ............................................. 38
`
`Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC et al.,
`No. 7-18-cv-00147 (W.D. Tex. July. 22, 2020) (text order) ................................ 17
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................... 4
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips, N.V.,
`IPR2020- 00771, Papers 17-18 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2020) .................................... 19
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) .............................................. 4
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 4
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................6, 7
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 9
`
`iv
`
`

`

`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig. v. Apotex Corp.,
`536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 8
`
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 8
`
`In re Urbanski,
`809 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2016) ................................................................. 48
`
`In re Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`830 F. App’x 318 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 16
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00582, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020) .............................................. 20
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 8
`
`Kerr Machine Co. d/b/a Kerr Pumps v. Vulcan Industrial Holdings, LLC,
`No. 6-20-cv-00200-ADA (W. D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2020) (text order) ....................... 15
`
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`Case No. 6:20-CV-00200-ADA, Dkt. No. 76 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) ..... 14, 16
`
`Kirsch Research & Dev. v. Iko Indus.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00317-ADA,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191684 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) .................................. 14
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 49
`
`Mylan Lab. Ltd. v. Janssen Pharm. NV,
`IPR2020-00440, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2020) ................................... 10, 39
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00008, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2020) ........................................... 21
`
`Netlist v. SK Hynik Inc.
`No. 6:20-cv-00194-ADA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47242 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2,
`2021) ..................................................................................................................... 24
`
`v
`
`

`

`Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00961, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ............................................ 21
`
`Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00962, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ............................................ 21
`
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018- 00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) ............................................. 5
`
`Nintendo Co., Ltd. v. Gamevice, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01197, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021) ............................................ 20
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 9
`
`P&G v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2021) .............................................. 22
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ........................................................................................... 4
`
`SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00981, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2020) .......................................... 20
`
`Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Zircon Corp.,
`IPR2021-01701, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021) ........................................... 21
`
`Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA,
`No. 2:13-cv-1047-WCB, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29572 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11,
`2015) ..................................................................................................................... 13
`
`U.S. Venture, Inc. v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.,IPR2020-
`00728, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020) ............................................................. 20
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. Martin Kuster,
`IPR2020-01410, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2021) ........................................... 37
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Western Digital v. Kuster,
`IPR2020-01391, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. February 16, 2021) .................................... 30
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ......................................................................................................1, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS RELIED ON
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`2001 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-1210-
`ADA, D.I. 32, Scheduling Order
`2002 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 6:20-cv-1211-
`ADA, D.I. 32, Scheduling Order
`2003 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1212-ADA,
`D.I. 34, Scheduling Order
`2004 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. et al., No.
`6:20-cv-1213-ADA, D.I. 43, Scheduling Order
`2005 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Labs Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1214-
`ADA, D.I. 31, Scheduling Order
`2006 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. STMicroelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`1250-ADA, D.I. 34, Scheduling Order
`2007 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Western Digital Techs Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`1216-ADA, D.I. 34, Scheduling Order
`2008 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 4:20-cv-
`991-ALM, D.I. 22, Scheduling Order
`2009 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Western Digital Techs Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`1216-ADA, D.I. 1, Complaint
`2010 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. STMicroelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`1250-ADA, D.I. 1, Complaint
`2011 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Labs Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1214-
`ADA, D.I. 1, Complaint
`2012 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. et al., No.
`6:20-cv-1213-ADA, D.I. 1, Complaint
`2013 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1212-ADA,
`D.I. 1, Complaint
`2014 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 6:20-cv-1211-
`ADA, D.I. 1, Complaint
`2015 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-1210-
`ADA, D.I. 1, Complaint
`2016 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 4:20-cv-
`991-ALM, D.I. 1, Complaint
`2017 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 4:20-cv-
`991-ALM, D.I. 27, Order
`2018 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-1210-
`ADA, Notice of Electronic Filing, D.I. 20
`
`viii
`
`

`

`2019 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 4:20-cv-
`991-ALM, D.I. 17, Memorandum Opinion and Order
`2020 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 6:20-cv-1211-
`ADA, Notice of Electronic Filing (Text Order)
`2021 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. et al., No.
`6:20-cv-1213-ADA, Notice of Electronic Filing, D.I. 46
`2022 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 6:20-cv-1211-
`ADA, Notice of Electronic Filing, D.I. 37
`2023 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. et al., No.
`6:20-cv-1213-ADA, D.I. 15, Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
`2024 Exhibit D-4 to Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`2025 Exhibit D-9 to Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`2026 Ryan Davis, How Texas Judges Have Kept IP Trials Moving During
`COVID, LAW360, Apr. 6, 2021, https://www.law360.com/
`articles/1372773/how-texas-judges-have-kept-ip-trials-movingduring-
`covid
`2027 Exhibit D-4 to Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`2028 Exhibit D-9 to Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`2029 Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`2030 Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`2031 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP USA Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1212-ADA,
`D.I. 28, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2032 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. STMicroelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`1215-ADA, D.I. 28, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2033 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Labs Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1214-
`ADA, D.I. 25, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2034 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-1210-
`ADA, D.I. 25, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2035 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. et al., No.
`6:20-cv-1213-ADA, D.I. 29, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`Standard Scheduling Order, United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas
`2037 Lauren Berg, Google Hit With $26M Video Patent Verdict In WDTX,
`LAW360, Nov. 16, 2021, https://www.law360.com/articles/1441219
`
`2036
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Through the undersigned Counsel, Patent Owner Ocean Semiconductor LLC
`
`(“Ocean” or “Patent Owner”) submits the following Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (a). See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (b).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Applied Materials, Inc. (“AMAT” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248 (“the ’248 Patent”) on
`
`August 3, 2021. (IPR2021-01342, Paper No. 1 (“Petition”).) The Petition should
`
`be denied for several reasons.
`
`First, the Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to
`
`deny the Petition because there already are two, separate district courts—in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) and the Western District of Texas
`
`(“WDTX”)—overseeing a total of eight district court actions that will have
`
`addressed the validity of claims of the ’248 Patent by the projected February 19,
`
`2023, deadline for a Final Written Decision (“FWD”).1 Specifically, the EDTX
`
`proceeding (pending before Judge Mazzant, III) where the ’248 Patent is being
`
`asserted against a third-party defendant has its Final Pretrial Conference scheduled
`
`for August 15, 2022—almost six months before the Board’s statutory FWD
`
`
`1 All emphasis in this Patent Owner Preliminary Response is added unless noted
`
`otherwise.
`
`1
`
`

`

`deadline of February 19, 2023, and typically starts trial three weeks later—still
`
`more than five months before the FWD deadline. The Standard Scheduling Order
`
`in EDTX provides for no more than two weeks between the Pretrial Conference
`
`and Trial. (Ex. 2036 at 1.) Even if Petitioner were to argue that this timeline
`
`fluctuates from case to case, there is no factual basis to dispute that trial would not
`
`promptly take place within the five months between the Final Pretrial Conference
`
`and the FWD deadline. In a similar vein, the seven related WDTX proceedings
`
`(all pending before Judge Albright) have trial scheduled to take place several
`
`months before the FWD deadline. Indeed, the Final Pretrial Conference is set to
`
`take place on November 16, 2022—more than three months before the FWD
`
`deadline—and trial on December 7, 2022—more than two months before the
`
`FWD deadline.
`
`Second, all of the defendants in the seven WDTX proceedings where the
`
`’248 Patent is asserted have explicitly refused to be bound by any prior art
`
`references and grounds asserted in IPRs, including two IPRs filed by one of the co-
`
`defendants. The defendant in the EDTX litigation also has never agreed to be
`
`bound. Thus, the prior art references involved in this IPR will be litigated in the
`
`parallel district court proceedings regardless of the outcome in this IPR.
`
`Third, there is a complete overlap between issues raised in this Petition and
`
`in the eight parallel district court proceedings, including asserted claims, asserted
`
`2
`
`

`

`prior art references, and identical invalidity arguments. With the eight non-party
`
`defendants having raised the same references and grounds in their invalidity
`
`contentions as those asserted in this IPR, there is no conceivable efficiency that
`
`could be achieved through this IPR, if instituted. Thus, the possibility of
`
`duplication of efforts here is almost a certainty, as is the potential for inconsistent
`
`results, should the Board decide to become the third tribunal across eight different
`
`proceedings considering the overlapping issues.
`
`Tellingly, Petitioner has failed to adhere to the Federal Circuit’s mandate
`
`and explain why addressing the same validity issues in this IPR would not be
`
`duplicative of those involved in parallel district court proceedings, particularly
`
`where those issues will be solved months before the FWD deadline here.
`
`Petitioner’s due process arguments are unavailing as the Federal Circuit is
`
`clear that Petitioner, purportedly unrelated to the third-party defendants in the
`
`parallel district court proceedings, may still pursue its own claims in a separate
`
`district court proceeding.
`
`For each of these reasons and, as further discussed below, because Schulze
`
`and Gupta do not render obvious the challenged claims of the ’248 patent, the
`
`Petition should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Discretionary Denial of Review Under 35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), “the Director [is invested] with discretion on the
`
`question [of] whether to institute review.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`
`1348, 1356 (2018) (emphasis in original). The Board is “permitted, but never
`
`compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815
`
`F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`S. Ct. 2131 (2016). In exercising its discretion, the Board considers the merits of a
`
`petition, not in isolation, but in view of surrounding circumstances relevant to the
`
`“potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes review process and the
`
`fundamental fairness of the process for all parties.” General Plastic Indus. Co. v.
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 18 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6,
`
`2017) (Precedential).
`
`Denial may be warranted in view of “events in other proceedings related to
`
`the same patent, either at the Office, in district courts, or the ITC,” regardless of
`
`whether the minimum standards for institution are met. Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide (“TPG”), at 58 (citing NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs.,
`
`Inc., IPR2018- 00752, Paper 8, at 11–21 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)) (Precedential).
`
`4
`
`

`

`In balancing whether to exercise its § 314(a) discretion to deny institution,
`
`the Board considers six factors articulated in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11, at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (Precedential) (“Fintiv I”):
`
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`
`
`6.
`
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.
`
`In examining these factors, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether
`
`efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting
`
`review.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15, at 8 (P.T.A.B. May
`
`13, 2020) (“Fintiv II”); see TPG at 58 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)).
`
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`To make a prima facie showing of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
`
`Petition must, among other requirements, fulfill the requirements set forth in
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), including demonstrating that the cited
`
`references disclose each element of a challenged claim. In re Magnum Oil Tools
`
`5
`
`

`

`Int’l., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Apple Inc. v. Contentguard
`
`Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 at 12-13 (PTAB July 13, 2015).
`
`Petitioner also has the burden to show there would have been some motivation
`
`to combine the asserted prior art, and that the proposed combination would render
`
`the patented claims obvious. “Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that
`
`the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim
`
`under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., 829
`
`F.3d at 1376. Even if individual modifications or choices were obvious, a petition
`
`must explain why making all of the changes at once would be obvious. Apple Inc.
`
`v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 16-17 (“[T]he mere fact that individual changes might
`
`have been obvious does not make doing all of the changes at once obvious”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has found that, even for an obviousness challenge based
`
`on a single reference in view of the knowledge and skill of a POSITA, there must be
`
`a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a
`
`combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the
`
`claimed combination. In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`In other words, when a gap in a single prior art reference requires filling with, for
`
`example, the knowledge of one of a POSITA, there must be a further showing that
`
`the POSITA would have arrived at the claimed invention.
`
`6
`
`

`

`The lack of a technological obstacle to combining references, in and of itself,
`
`does not justify a finding of obviousness. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig. v.
`
`Apotex Corp., 536 F.3d 1361, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reason for combining
`
`disparate prior art references is critical and should be made explicit. InTouch Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citation
`
`omitted).
`
`Hindsight analysis is inappropriate; obviousness must be measured “at the
`
`time the invention was made.” Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs, 520 F.3d 1358,
`
`1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis original). A petition must demonstrate a rationale
`
`to combine prior art references without relying on the patent disclosure itself. Apple
`
`Inc. v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 15, 17; see also P&G v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`
`566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Petitioner must not use the patent as a
`
`roadmap for making its proposed combination. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`III. EACH OF THE SIX FINTIV I FACTORS WEIGHS STRONGLY IN
`FAVOR OF DENYING REVIEW UNDER SECTION 314
`
`A weighing of the six Fintiv I factors demonstrates that efficiency and the
`
`integrity of the AIA are best served by denying institution. Indeed, each factor
`
`favors denying institution of review.
`
`7
`
`

`

`While the facts and circumstances surrounding this IPR alone warrant
`
`discretionary denial (as demonstrated below), the Board should consider the
`
`parallel litigations involving the Patent Owner and non-party defendants when
`
`deciding whether to institute this Petition.
`
`Where there are multiple district court proceedings involving the same
`
`patent and different parties—as here—Petitioner should address the other
`
`proceedings and advise the Board on why institution would not be duplicative of
`
`the work already done. See Mylan Lab. Ltd. v. Janssen Pharm. NV, IPR2020-
`
`00440, Paper 17, at 22-23 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2020) (denying institution based in
`
`part on separate district court litigation involving the same patent but different
`
`defendant) (hereinafter, “Mylan”). The Petitioner failed to do so here.
`
`The Fintiv Board instructs:
`
`Even when a petitioner is unrelated to a defendant [ ], if the issues are
`the same as, or substantially similar to, those already or about to be
`litigated, or other circumstances weigh against redoing the work of
`another tribunal, the Board may, nonetheless, exercise the authority to
`deny institution. An unrelated petitioner should, therefore, address any
`other district court or Federal Circuit proceedings involving the
`challenged patent to discuss why addressing the same or substantially
`the same issues would not be duplicative of the prior case even if the
`petition is brought by a different party.
`
`Id. at 22.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges but neglects to address any of the eight additional
`
`pending related district court proceedings in which the ’248 Patent is asserted. As
`
`8
`
`

`

`set forth above, jury trial in the seven WDTX proceedings is set for December 7,
`
`2022, while any proceeding here would not conclude until February 19, 2023—
`
`more than two months later. (Ex. 2001-2007, 4.) Similarly, the final pretrial
`
`conference in the EDTX proceeding is set for August 15, 2022, with trial to begin
`
`shortly thereafter, likely at the end of August or in September—which is still five
`
`months before the statutory deadline for FWD here. As such, two jury trials
`
`deciding the validity of the ’248 patent will conclude long before the FWD in this
`
`proceeding. The totality of these circumstances is thus contrary to the AIA’s goal
`
`of providing for an efficient alternative means to resolve questions of validity.
`
`A. Eight District Court Litigations Are Pending Between Patent
`Owner and Third Parties That Involve the ’248 Patent
`
`The ’248 Patent (as well as six other patents) has been asserted by Patent
`
`Owner against third parties in seven WDTX actions: Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`
`Western Digital Technologies, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01216 (W.D. Tex.). (Ex. 2009 at
`
`¶¶ 133-153); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. STMicroelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01215 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2010 at ¶¶ 142-161); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon
`
`Labs. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01214 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 131-150); Ocean
`
`Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., et al., No. 6:20-cv-01213 (W.D.
`
`Tex.) (Ex. 2012 at ¶¶ 132-151); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP
`
`Semiconductors NV, et al., No. 6:20-cv-01212 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2013 at ¶¶ 140-
`
`159); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 6:20-cv-01211 (W.D.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Tex.) (Ex. 2014 at ¶¶ 141-160); and Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc.,
`
`et al., No. 6:20-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2015 at ¶¶ 130-149). For all seven of
`
`these pending actions, a Claim Construction Hearing is set for December 8, 2021,
`
`and trial is scheduled to begin December 7, 2022. (Ex. 2001-2007 at 2.)
`
`In addition, the ’248 Patent is asserted in an eighth district court action
`
`pending in the EDTX— Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et
`
`al., No. 4:20-cv-00991 (E.D. Tex.). (Ex. 2016 at ¶¶ 130-149.) The Claim
`
`Construction Hearing in that action is set for January 14, 2022 (Ex. 2017), and the
`
`Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for August 15, 2022. (Ex. 2008 at 4.)
`
`B.
`
`Fintiv I, Factor 1 Favors Discretionary Denial: No Stay Motion Is
`Pending in the EDTX and WDTX Proceedings, and No Evidence
`Exists that One May Be Entered
`
`Fintiv I, Factor 1—whether the district court has granted a stay or evidence
`
`exists that one may be granted if an IPR proceeding is instituted—favors denial
`
`because Petitioner is a not a defendant in any of the pending district court
`
`proceedings and, as such, cannot file any stay motion in view of the instant
`
`Petition. Nor have any of the EDTX or WDTX defendants done so in any of the
`
`pending district court actions where the ’248 Patent is asserted. While a district
`
`court determines whether to grant a stay based on