UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-01348
`Patent No. 6,836,691
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 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
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
` APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................... 3
`
` Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .............................................. 3
`
` Petitioner’s Pre-Institution Burden of Proof .................................................... 5
`
` EACH OF THE SIX FINTIV I FACTORS WEIGHS STRONGLY IN
`FAVOR OF DENYING REVIEW UNDER SECTION 314 .................................... 6
`
` Eight District Court Litigations Are Pending Between Patent Owner and
`Third Parties That Involve the ’691 Patent ............................................................ 8
`
` Fintiv I Factor 1 Favors Discretionary Denial: No Stay Motion Is Pending in
`EDTX and WDTX and No Evidence Exists that One May Be Entered ................ 9
`
` Fintiv I Factor 2 Favors Discretionary Denial: The Trial Dates in EDTX and
`WDTX Litigations Are Months Before the Board’s Projected Statutory Deadline
`For An FWD .........................................................................................................14
`
` Fintiv I Factor 3 Strongly Favors Discretionary Denial: There Has Been
`Immense Investment in the Parallel Proceedings by the Court and Non-Party
`Defendants ............................................................................................................16
`
` Patent Owner and Non-Party Defendants Have Expended Substantial
`Resources in the Parallel Proceedings ..............................................................17
`
` 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 Parallel Proceedings ..................23
`
` There Is Complete Overlap As to Claims and Prior Art References Raised
`in the Petition and in the Parallel Proceedings ..................................................24
`
` There Is Complete Overlap As to Asserted Grounds and Arguments ........26
`
` The Non-Party Defendants in the Parallel District Court Proceedings Are
`Committed to Asserting the Same Prior Art References or Grounds as in This
`Petition ..............................................................................................................26
`
` Fintiv I Factor 5 Favors Discretionary Denial: Petitioner Has Failed to
`Explain Why Addressing the Same or Substantially the Same Validity Issues In
`This IPR Would Not Be Duplicative of Those Involved in the Parallel District
`Court Proceedings .................................................................................................28
`
`i
`
`

`

` Fintiv I Factor 6: Other Circumstances Further Favor Non-Institution,
`Including the Numerous Additional Prior Art References Raised in the Parallel
`District Court Actions ...........................................................................................29
`
` Balancing the Six Fintiv I Factors Weighs Heavily in Favor of Denying the
`Petition on a Discretionary Basis .........................................................................31
`
` PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`IT WOULD PREVAIL IN PROVING THE OBVIOUSNESS Of ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .........................................................................................31
`
` Petitioner Engages in Impermissible Hindsight Reconstruction by Offering
`Conclusory Statements in Its Effort to Show That a POSITA Would Have
`Known to Achieve the Desired Result of the Invention Claimed in the ’691
`Patent ....................................................................................................................33
`
` Dr. Hatalis’ Declaration Is Insufficient to Support the Petition Because It,
`Too, Relies on Conclusory Statements to Offer Legal Conclusions ....................40
`
` CONCLUSION .................................................................................................42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ............................ 4, 7, 14, 29
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020) ................................ 5, 15, 24
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00122 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020) ...........................................................20
`
`Code200, UAB v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021) .............................................28
`
`Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC et al.,
`No. 7-18-cv-00147 (W.D. Tex. July. 22, 2020) (text order) ................................12
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)............................................................................................ 3
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips, N.V.,
`IPR2020- 00771 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2020) ...........................................................15
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) .............................................. 4
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..............................................................................32
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 5
`
`In re Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`830 F. App’x 318 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................11
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00582 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020) ..............................................................15
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................31
`
`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) .......................11
`
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`Case No. 6:20-CV-00200-ADA,
`Dkt. No. 76 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) .................................................... 10, 11, 12
`
`Kirsch Research & Dev. v. Iko Indus.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00317-ADA,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191684 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) ..................................10
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .........................................................................................5, 32
`
`Mylan Lab. Ltd. v. Janssen Pharm. NV,
`IPR2020-00440 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2020) ............................................................ 6
`
`Mylan Labs. Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V.,
`989 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021). ...........................................................................29
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00008, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2020) ...........................................15
`
`Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00961, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ............................................15
`
`Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00962, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ............................................15
`
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018- 00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) .......................................4, 24
`
`Nintendo Co., Ltd. v. Gamevice, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01197 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021) ............................................................15
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................31
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc.,
`643 F. App’x 960 (Fed. Cir. 2016). ......................................................................32
`
`Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................40
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)............................................................................................ 3
`
`iv
`
`

`

`SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00981 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2020) ...........................................................15
`
`Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Zircon Corp.,
`IPR2021-01701, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021) ...........................................15
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 5
`
`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) ...................................10
`
`U.S. Venture, Inc. v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.,
`IPR2020-00728 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020) ..............................................................15
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. Martin Kuster,
`IPR2020-01410, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2021) .................................... 21, 28
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................. 1, 3, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`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
`
`vi
`
`

`

`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 Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`2025 Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`2026 Exhibit G04 to Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`2027 Exhibit G09 to Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`2028 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. et al., No.
`6:20-cv-1213-ADA, D.I. 29, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2029 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. STMicroelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`1215-ADA, D.I. 28, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2030 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Labs Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1214-
`ADA, D.I. 25, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2031 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-1210-
`ADA, D.I. 25, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`2032 Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP USA Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1212-ADA,
`D.I. 28, Opposition to Mtn for Consolidation
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Through the undersigned Counsel, Patent Owner, Ocean Semiconductor,
`
`LLC, submits the following Patent Owner Preliminary Response (“Preliminary
`
`Response”) to the Petition for Inter Partes Review filed by Petitioner Applied
`
`Materials, Inc. pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a).
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Applied Materials, Inc. (“AMAT” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,691 (the “’691 patent”) on
`
`August 3, 2021. (IPR2021-01339, 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 at least two district courts—in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas (“EDTX”) and the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”)—overseeing a
`
`total of eight district court actions will have addressed the validity of each of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’691 patent many months before the projected February
`
`26, 2023, deadline for a Final Written Decision (“FWD”). Specifically, the EDTX
`
`action (pending before Judge Mazzant, III) where the ’691 patent is being asserted
`
`against a third-party defendant has its Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for
`
`August 15, 2022—over six months before the Board’s statutory FWD deadline of
`
`February 26, 2023. As Judge Mazzant typically starts trial three weeks the Final
`
`Pretrial Conference, trial will begin more than five and a half months before the
`
`1
`
`

`

`FWD deadline. In the similar vein, the seven related WDTX actions (all pending
`
`before Judge Albright) have trial scheduled to begin on December 7, 2022—more
`
`than two and a half months before the FWD deadline.
`
`Second, all of the third-party defendants in the seven WDTX actions where
`
`the ’691 patent is asserted have explicitly refused to be bound by any PTAB
`
`decisions concerning prior art references and grounds asserted in IPRs. Similarly,
`
`the third-party defendant in the EDTX litigation also has never agreed to be bound.
`
`Thus, since the district court defendants’ invalidity contentions include the
`
`references forming the basis of the present Petition, the prior art references involved
`
`in this IPR will be litigated in the parallel district court actions regardless of the
`
`outcome of this IPR.
`
`Third, there is a complete overlap between issues raised in this Petition and
`
`in the eight parallel district court actions—including the asserted claims, the
`
`asserted prior art references, and identical invalidity arguments. Given that the
`
`eight non-party defendants have raised the same references and grounds in their
`
`invalidity contentions as those asserted in this IPR, it is all but guaranteed that no
`
`conceivable efficiency could be achieved through this IPR, if instituted. Thus, the
`
`possibility of duplication of efforts here is not only high but almost a certainty, as
`
`is the potential for inconsistent results, should the Board decide to become the
`
`third tribunal across nine different proceedings considering the overlapping issues.
`
`2
`
`

`

`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 actions, particularly where
`
`those issues will be resolved months before the FWD deadline.
`
`Beyond all of the reasons for discretionary denial, Petitioner fails to meet it
`
`burden of showing that the challenged claims are obvious. In particular, the
`
`Petition’s effort to rely on a combination of three different source of prior art
`
`knowledge fails to properly address the question of why there would have been
`
`motivation to combine those three sources in the particular way necessary to reach
`
`the same method and system claimed in the ‘691 patent, and also repeatedly
`
`engages in improper hindsight reconstruction.
`
`For at least these reasons, the Petition should be denied.1
`
` APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
` Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`The AIA’s 35 U.S.C. §314(a) “invests the Director 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
`
`
`1 Patent Owner reserves the right to discuss various additional deficiencies of the
`Petition, such as the assertion that Funk is entitled to the priority date of the Funk
`Provisional, that Funk qualifies as prior art given the invention date of the invention
`claimed in the ‘691 patent, etc.
`
`3
`
`

`

`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).2
`
`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.
`
`
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`
`
`2 All emphasis in this Preliminary Response is added unless noted otherwise.
`
`4
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`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)).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Pre-Institution Burden of Proof
`
`To institute an IPR, Petitioner bears the burden to establish “a reasonable
`
`likelihood” of prevailing on the merits with respect to at least one challenged
`
`claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner has the burden to identify “with
`
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). “[T]hat burden ‘never shifts to the patentee.’” In
`
`re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015)). Petitioner’s burden of proof is not satisfied by employing “mere
`
`conclusory statements.” See TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 942 F.3d 1352,
`
`5
`
`

`

`1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
`
`(2007)).
`
`Obviousness is a question of law premised on underlying issues of fact, all
`
`of which must be considered, including: (i) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(ii) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (iii) the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art; and (iv) secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 406; Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`Obviousness determinations based on “conclusory and unsupported” statements
`
`“risks allowing the challenger to use the challenged patent as a roadmap to
`
`reconstruct the claimed invention using disparate elements from prior art—i.e., the
`
`impermissible ex post reasoning and hindsight bias that KSR warned against.” Id.
`
`at 1361.
`
` 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 and every
`
`factor favors denying institution of review.
`
`While the facts and circumstances surrounding this IPR alone warrant
`
`discretionary denial (to be discussed in greater detail below), the Board should also
`
`consider the numerous parallel litigations involving the Patent Owner and non-
`
`party defendants when deciding whether to institute this Petition.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Where there are multiple district court actions 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 Fintiv II 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.
`
`Fintiv II at 22.
`
`Here, while Petitioner acknowledges them, it neglects to substantively
`
`address any of the eight pending related district court actions in which the ’691
`
`patent is asserted. As discussed above, jury trial in the seven WDTX actions is set
`
`for December 7, 2022, while any proceeding here would not conclude until
`
`February 26, 2023—more than two and a half months later. (Exs. 2001-2007 at 4).
`
`Similarly, the final pretrial conference in the EDTX action is set for August 15,
`
`2022, with trial to begin shortly thereafter, likely at the end of August or early
`
`7
`
`

`

`September—more than five and a half months before the statutory deadline for
`
`FWD. (Ex. 2008 at 4.) As such, at least two jury trials deciding the validity of the
`
`’691 patent—including as to the prior art references raised by Petitioner—will
`
`conclude long before a FWD would issue in this proceeding. (In this regard,
`
`Petitioner is, at best, misleading when it alleges (Petition at 7) that “[r]esolution of
`
`those cases would not resolve the dispute between Petitioner and Ocean.”)
`
`The totality of these circumstances is, thus, wholly contrary to the AIA’s
`
`goal of providing for an efficient alternative means to resolve questions of validity.
`
` Eight District Court Litigations Are Pending Between Patent
`Owner and Third Parties That Involve the ’691 Patent
`
`In addition to six-seven other patents, the ’691 patent 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-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`
`Dec. 31, 2020) (Ex. 2009 at 175-194); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`
`STMicroelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01215-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020) (Ex.
`
`2010 at ¶¶ 204-223); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Labs. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01214-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020) (Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 172-191); Ocean
`
`Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., et al., No. 6:20-cv-01213-ADA
`
`(W.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020) (Ex. 2012 at ¶¶ 173-192); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`
`NXP Semiconductors NV, et al., No. 6:20-cv-01212-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 31,
`
`2020) (Ex. 2013 at ¶¶ 202-221); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No.
`
`8
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-01211-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020) (Ex. 2014 at ¶¶ 222-241); and
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-01210-ADA
`
`(W.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020) (Ex. 2015 at ¶¶ 171-190). 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. (Exs. 2001-2007 at 2.)
`
`The ’691 patent is also asserted (along with six other patents) in an eighth
`
`district court action pending in the EDTX— Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei
`
`Device USA Inc., et al., No. 4:20-cv-ALM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020). (Ex. 2016 at
`
`¶¶ 171-190.) 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), with the actual trial likely to start two-three weeks later.
`
`
`
`Fintiv I Factor 1 Favors Discretionary Denial: No Stay Motion Is
`Pending in EDTX and WDTX 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 in any of the pending
`
`district court actions where the ’691 patent is asserted sought a stay of any kind.
`
`While a district court determines whether or not to grant a stay based on the facts
`
`9
`
`

`

`of each case, there is no evidence here whatsoever to suggest that either of the
`
`district courts in any of the EDTX or WDTX district court actions would grant
`
`such a stay if it was ever sought. In fact, a stay in EDTX or WDTX district court
`
`action is extremely unlikely and the likelihood that all eight actions will be
`
`stayed—particularly when there are six-seven additional patents at issue in each of
`
`those actions—is virtually non-existent.
`
`Petitioner states that neither of the district court has “commented on its
`
`willingness to grant a stay in any of the parallel litigations” (Pet. at 8) but this is
`
`not the full story. The district courts have actually made their inclinations clear.
`
`For example, courts in the EDTX “have uniformly denied motions for a
`
`stay” “when the PTAB has not yet acted on a petition for inter partes review.”
`
`Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-cv-1047-WCB, 2015 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 29572, at *17 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.).
`
`Moreover, the seven pending third-party actions in WDTX are all pending
`
`before Judge Albright. (See Exs. 2001-2007.) To date, Judge Albright has denied
`
`all but one opposed motion to stay pending resolution of an inter partes review.
`
`See Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, Case No. 6:20-CV-00200-
`
`ADA, Dkt. No. 76 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) (denying a motion to stay because the
`
`trial date would occur before the date of the final written decision from the PTAB,
`
`the Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to jury trial, and the district court case
`
`10
`
`

`

`would completely resolve issues including infringement and all potential grounds
`
`of invalidity and damages). This is true whether or not an IPR has been
`
`instituted.
`
`The single instance where Judge Albright granted a stay—Kirsch Research
`
`& Dev. v. Iko Indus., No. 6:20-cv-00317-ADA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191684
`
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021)—is an outlier. There: (1) two IPR proceedings are
`
`already instituted as to the only asserted patent, with the PTAB indicating a
`
`likelihood of invalidity on multiple grounds (and Albright indicating at n.2 that he
`
`likely would not have granted a stay if he had been deciding the motion before the
`
`IPRs were instituted; (2) one of the IPRs will have a FWD before any court trial;
`
`(3) two more IPR petitions are pending; (4) the two patent claims at issue in the
`
`WDTX case are both challenged in the IPRs; and (5) defendants agreed to be
`
`bound by the statutory estoppel of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). None of those facts are
`
`present here.
`
`Indeed, the cases in which Judge Albright has denied such a stay motion are
`
`legion. For example, in 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),
`
`Judge Albright listed the following reasons (all of which are equally applicable
`
`here) for denying the motion to stay:
`
`(1) No institution had taken place. (2) Even if the PTAB institutes, the
`Court anticipates that the trial date will occur before the final written
`
`11
`
`

`

`decision. (3) Allowing this case to proceed to completion will provide
`a more complete resolution of the issues including infringement, all
`potential grounds of invalidity, and damages. (4) The Court believes
`in the Seventh Amendment. (5) Plaintiff opposes the stay.
`
`When the defendant in Kerr Machine subsequently filed a mandamus
`
`petition arguing that Judge Albright had adopted rules that set an “impossible
`
`barrier” for infringement cases to be stayed while they are under review at the
`
`PTAB, the Federal Circuit denied the petition. In re Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`
`830 F. App’x 318, 319 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Even after an IPR proceeding was
`
`instituted there, Judge Albright again denied a motion to stay for all of the same
`
`reasons set out in his prior order (with the sole exception that, by that time,
`
`institution had taken place). Kerr Machine Co., No. 6-20-cv00200, Dkt. 76, at 3-6
`
`(W. D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021).
`
`Still further, Judge Albright has offered consistent reasoning in other matters
`
`in denying similar motions to stay pending IPR. See, e.g., Continental Intermodal
`
`Group -