Micron Technology, Inc.
`Petitioner
`v.
`Vervain, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-01547 (U.S. Patent No. 8,891,298)
`IPR2021-01548 (U.S. Patent No. 9,196,385)
`
`Micron’s Hearing Demonstratives
`
`January 12, 2023
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 1
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`Vervain, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-01547 (U.S. Patent No. 8,891,298)
`IPR2021-01548 (U.S. Patent No. 9,196,385)
`
`Micron’s Hearing Demonstratives
`
`January 12, 2023
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 1
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`1. The 298 and 385 IPR Grounds
`2. The 298 and 385 Patents
`3. The 298 IPR
`A.
`Claim Construction: “Blocks”
`B.
`The Moshayedi Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`i.
`
`C.
`
`ii.
`
`i.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`The Sutardja Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`ii.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`PO’s Baseless Attacks Against Dr. Liu
`D.
`4. The 385 IPR Unique Issues
`A.
`The Moshayedi Ground 2 Renders Obvious Claims 12 and 13
`B.
`The Sutardja Ground 1 Renders Obvious Claim 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 2
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`1. The 298 and 385 IPR Grounds
`2. The 298 and 385 Patents
`3. The 298 IPR
`A.
`Claim Construction: “Blocks”
`B.
`The Moshayedi Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`i.
`
`C.
`
`ii.
`
`i.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`The Sutardja Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`ii.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`PO’s Baseless Attacks Against Dr. Liu
`D.
`4. The 385 IPR Unique Issues
`A.
`The Moshayedi Ground 2 Renders Obvious Claims 12 and 13
`B.
`The Sutardja Ground 1 Renders Obvious Claim 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 3
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`298 Instituted Grounds
`
`• Moshayedi Grounds
`- Claims 1-5, 11 are obvious over Moshayedi and Dusija in view of the knowledge of a POSA (ground 3)
`- Claim 11 is obvious over Moshayedi, Dusija, and Sutardja in view of the knowledge of a POSA (ground 4)
`
`• PO argues only that Moshayedi in view of Dusija does not render obvious the hot block limitations of claim 1
`
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 6; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 1.
`
`• Sutardja Grounds
`- Claims 1-5, 11 are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja in view of the knowledge of a POSA (ground 1)
`- Claims 8-9 are obvious over Dusija, Sutardja, and Li in view of the knowledge of a POSA (ground 2)
`
`• PO argues only that Dusija in view of Sutardja does not render obvious the hot block limitations of claim 1
`
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 6; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 1.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 4
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`385 Instituted Grounds
`
`• Moshayedi Grounds
`- Claims 1-5, 11-13 are obvious over Moshayedi and Dusija in view of the knowledge of a POSA (ground 2)
`- Claim 11 is obvious over Moshayedi, Dusija, and Sutardja in view of the knowledge of a POSA (ground 3)
`
`• PO makes the same challenges against hot block limitations of claim 1 and similar challenges to claims 12-13
`(cold block limitations)
`
`385 Petition (Paper 1), 6; 385 Reply (Paper 23), 15.
`
`• Sutardja Grounds
`- Claims 1-5 and 11-13 are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja in view of the knowledge of a POSA (ground
`1)
`
`• PO makes the same challenges against hot block limitations of claim 1 and a similar challenge to claim 13
`
`385 Petition (Paper 1), 6; 385 Reply (Paper 23), 24.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 5
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`1. The 298 and 385 IPR Grounds
`2. The 298 and 385 Patents
`3. The 298 IPR
`A.
`Claim Construction: “Blocks”
`B.
`The Moshayedi Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`i.
`
`C.
`
`ii.
`
`i.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`The Sutardja Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`ii.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`PO’s Baseless Attacks Against Dr. Liu
`D.
`4. The 385 IPR Unique Issues
`A.
`The Moshayedi Ground 2 Renders Obvious Claims 12 and 13
`B.
`The Sutardja Ground 1 Renders Obvious Claim 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 6
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Specification of 298 and 385 Patents: Non-Volatile Memory with SLC and
`MLC Memory Modules
`• The specification discloses a non-volatile
`memory system (e.g., flash memory) with two
`types of memory: SLC (single-level cells) and
`MLC (multi-level cells).
`
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 18.
`
`• SLC and MLC characteristics were well known:
`- SLC: have greater endurance (can sustain more
`writes), but are more expensive than MLC
`- MLC: can store more data per unit cost than SLC
`
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 15, 17 (citing Ex. 1016 (Friedman),
`Ex. 1020 (Lee), and Ex. 1009 (298 Liu Decl.)).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`298 Patent, Fig. 1; ID (Paper 13), 4.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 7
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Specification of 298 and 385 Patents: Controller Maintains an Address Map
`for Logical to Physical Address Translation
`• The specification discloses that the system includes a controller that maps logical
`addresses (e.g., logical blocks) to physical addresses (e.g., physical blocks):
`
`298 Patent, 2:65-3:1; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 3-4, 5, n. 3.
`
`• For example, the specification teaches that in the event of a data integrity test failure,
`the controller will remap a logical address to a new physical SLC address.
`298 Patent, 6:12-23; 298 Petition (Paper 1), 19.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 8
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Specification of 298 and 385 Patents: Hot and Cold Block Disclosure
`
`• Central to the remaining disputes, the specification:
`- discloses allocating hot blocks, i.e., frequently written blocks, to SLC (which have greater endurance);
`and
`- discloses allocating cold blocks, i.e., infrequently written blocks, to MLC (which store data more
`densely).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`298 Patent, 6:24-35;
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 20.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 9
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Specification of 298 and 385 Patents: Hot Block Limitations
`
`• Hot Block Limitations:
`
`- Determine “hot blocks” by
`maintaining a “count”
`
`- “Allocate those blocks” to SLC
`“by transferring the respective
`contents”
`
`298 Patent, Claim 1, 6:24-35; 298 Petition (Paper 1), 20.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 10
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Differences Between 298 and 385 Claims
`
`• Claim 1 of the 385 Patent differs in that it discloses an “FTL.” No PO arguments relate to
`this difference.
`
`385 Petition (Paper 1), 34-36.
`
`• Claims 12-13 of the 385 Patent claim cold block functionality. PO challenges this unique
`aspect of the 385 Patent claims (see infra).
`
`385 Petition (Paper 1), 20, 48-50.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 11
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`1. The 298 and 385 IPR Grounds
`2. The 298 and 385 Patents
`3. The 298 IPR
`A.
`Claim Construction: “Blocks”
`B.
`The Moshayedi Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`i.
`
`C.
`
`ii.
`
`i.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`The Sutardja Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`ii.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`PO’s Baseless Attacks Against Dr. Liu
`D.
`4. The 385 IPR Unique Issues
`A.
`The Moshayedi Ground 2 Renders Obvious Claims 12 and 13
`B.
`The Sutardja Ground 1 Renders Obvious Claim 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 12
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: POPR and Institution Decision
`
`• PO made the implicit claim construction argument that the claimed “blocks” actually mean
`“physical blocks”:
`
`• The Board, at the institution phase, rejected PO’s argument because the claim recites
`“blocks,” not “physical blocks”:
`
`298 POPR (Paper 10), 38.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`298 ID (Paper 13), 17; 298
`Reply (Paper 24), 2.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 13
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: The POR Doubles Down On Its Erroneous
`Construction that Requires Physical Blocks
`• PO argues that “blocks” should be construed to mean “physical blocks” (excluding “logical
`blocks” from the claim scope):
`
`298 POR (Paper 18), 24; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 2.
`
`• PO’s sur-reply disingenuously argues that its construction is not physical blocks.
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 2.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 14
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: POR’s Construction Fails—Summary
`
`• PO’s construction is legally erroneous for at least five reasons:
`
`1. Patentee deliberately chose to claim “blocks,” not “physical blocks”;
`
`2. The surrounding claim language confirms that the “blocks” includes “logical blocks”;
`
`3. The claim would be nonsensical if “blocks” did not include “logical blocks” within its scope;
`
`4. PO fails to cite any disclaimer or definition; and
`
`5. The full record establishes that PO’s entire alleged basis for its construction is factually
`incorrect.
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 2-6.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 15
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (1) The Specification Demonstrates That Patentee
`Knew How to Claim “Logical Block,” “Physical Block,” and “Block”
`• Claim 1 recites, e.g., “at least one MLC non-volatile memory module comprising a plurality of
`individually erasable blocks.”
`• The patentee knew how to recite “logical blocks,” “physical blocks,” and “blocks”:
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 3.
`
`298 Patent, 2:13-15; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 3.
`
`298 Patent, 2:65-3:6; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 3.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`298 Patent, 6:24-29; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 3.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 16
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (1) Construction of “Blocks” Must Reflect Patentees
`Choice of Words
`• Federal Circuit precedent mandates that patentee be held to his deliberate choice of broad
`claim language.
`
`“[I]f Lilly had desired to limit the claims to ‘human patients,’ it could have used that
`language instead of ‘patient.’ Since Lilly chose to use the broader term[ ] . . .‘patient,’ the
`scope of the claims should reflect its choice of words.” Novo Nordisk A/S v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. CIV.A.: 98-643 MMS, 1999 WL 1094213, at *17 (D. Del. Nov. 18, 1999).
`
`“Independent claims … contain ‘a magazine catch bar’ … Nothing in the language of [the]
`claims … limits the scope of the generic term ‘magazine catch bar’ to exclude one that
`was factory installed—specifically, as Juggernaut asserts, factory installed as part of an
`original firearm with a detachable magazine.” Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events,
`Inc., 22 F.4th 1361, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 3.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 17
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (2) “Blocks” Exist in Two Forms: The Logical Form
`and the Physical Form
`• To start, it was well known that a “block” includes both its logical form and its physical form,
`and the controller uses a map to associate both forms:
`
`Ex. 1019 (Micheloni), 41; 298 Petition, 16-17; Ex. 1009 (298 Liu Decl.) ¶¶ 60-75;
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 4, n. 2 (citing 298 Patent, 2:59-3:13).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 18
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (2) The Surrounding Claim Language Confirms
`“Block” Includes Both Its Logical and Physical Form
`• The claim expressly recites a map that associates both forms of the “block”:
`
`298 Patent, Claims 1-2; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 3-4.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 19
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (2) Dr. Khatri Admits Such Maps Associate the Two
`Forms of a Block
`• PO’s expert, Dr. Khatri, confirms that the claim’s “map” is what maps the logical block form
`to its physical block form:
`
`Ex. 2014 ( 298 Khatri Decl.), ¶ 33; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 4.
`
`• PO’s sur-reply argument that claim 1 does not recite “logical block” thus fails because the
`claim (1) recites the generic “block” term, and (2) expressly recites an address map that
`associates the logical and physical forms of the block.
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 3-4; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 3-4.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 20
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (3) PO’s Construction Renders the Claim Nonsensical
`
`• The claim recites allocating “those blocks” to the SLC module—“physical blocks” do not, of
`course, move to a different module:
`
`298 Patent, Claim 1; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 4.
`
`• Thus, even if PO’s construction were correct for the initial claim reference to “block” (it’s
`not), “those blocks” in the relevant hot and cold block limitations must include logical
`blocks.
`- “[T]he patentee’s mere use of a term with an antecedent does not require that both terms have the
`same meaning” where a uniform reading is “nonsensical.” Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v.
`Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 6.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 21
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (3) Dr. Khatri Admits There Is Allocation of a Logical
`Block
`• Dr. Khatri admits that allocating refers to remapping the logical block address to the SLC
`module:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1059 (Khatri Depo.),
`104:3-11; 298 Reply
`(Paper 24), 4.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 22
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (3) PO’s Sur-Reply Argument Fails
`
`• In sur-reply, PO argues that the “allocating” limitation defines how the allocation occurs,
`namely, the allocation occurs “by transferring the contents of those blocks to the at least
`one SLC non-volatile memory module.”
`
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 4.
`
`• This is no rebuttal—it only confirms that the allocation is of a logical block.
`
`• As Dr. Liu explains and the prior art demonstrates, the transfer of data to a new block also
`requires remapping the logical block to the new physical block. Otherwise, the logical
`block address would point to incorrect data.
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 43-44; Ex. 1009, (298 Liu Decl.), ¶ 156; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 11, 23,
`Ex. 1057 (Liu Reply Decl.), ¶ 46 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1046 (Weathers), 7:54-66).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 23
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (4) PO Cites No Definition or Lexicography
`
`• PO’s construction requires reading “physical” into “block.”
`
`• That would require “precise and clear language” in the specification. Acceleration Bay,
`LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770-71 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`• To the contrary, the only relevant embodiment broadly uses “blocks”:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`298 Patent, 6:24-35;
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 6.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 24
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (5) PO’s Premise for Its Construction Was Proven
`Incorrect During Trial
`• PO argues that its construction is correct, because the claims recite “individually erasable
`blocks” and only physical blocks are erasable:
`
`• It was well known that logical blocks are erasable, even in the context of hot and cold
`blocks disclosures:
`
`298 POR (Paper 18), 24;
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 4-5.
`
`Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), Claim 2; 298 Reply
`(Paper 24), 5; see also 298 Reply (Paper
`24), 5 (citing Ex. 1061 (Linnell), 3:54-4:2,
`Ex. 1062 (Gorobets III), 2:10-34).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 25
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (5) PO’s Backtracking in Sur-reply Fails
`
`• PO now admits that logical blocks are erasable by the host.
`
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 4.
`
`• PO now argues that this is irrelevant because “claim 1 recites functionality the controller
`performs regarding the claimed ‘blocks,’ and the specification explains the controller deals
`with physical groups of memory cells.”
`- Put another way, PO argues that the “controller deals with blocks at a physical level.”
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 4-6.
`
`• As the following explains, PO is wrong on at least three counts.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 26
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (5)(i) The Claims Do Not Recite That the Blocks Are
`“Erasable” by the Controller
`• First, the claim does not recite that the blocks are “erasable” by the controller. To the
`contrary, the claim expressly disconnects the controller operation from the “erasable”
`nature of the blocks:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`298 Patent, Claim 1;
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 3-4, 5, n. 3;
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 4.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 27
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (5)(ii) PO’s Premise Is, Again, Incorrect
`
`• Second, the controller absolutely
`operates on logical blocks.
`
`• The claim itself states that the controller
`maintains the logical to physical block
`address map and remaps a logical
`address entry (e.g., a logical block) to a
`new physical address (e.g., a physical
`block).
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 5, n.3; 298 Petition (Paper 1), 19.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 28
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: (5)(iii) The Controller Does Effectuate the Erase of
`Logical Blocks
`
`• Third, even if the claim did recite that the controller erases the blocks (it doesn’t), a
`controller does effectuate the erase of a logical block.
`
`• While a host issues the erase command of a logical block, it was well known that the
`controller would erase the logical block by either “mark[ing] the corresponding physical
`block invalid” or “caus[ing] the erasure of the physical block.”
`
`Ex. 1057 (298 Liu Reply Decl.) ¶ 17 (citing Ex. 1061 (Linnell), 7:9-19, 7:48-67); 298 Reply (Paper 24), 5.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 29
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: PO’s Sur-reply “Modules” Argument Fails
`
`• In sur-reply, PO argues that “modules” means the “blocks” must be physical blocks.
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 5.
`
`• This fails on two counts.
`
`• First, PO cites only the claim language for support. But for all of the previous reasons,
`supra, the claim language does not support that “blocks” means “physical blocks.”
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 5.
`• Second, the claim expressly provides that the “modules” include the logical form of blocks:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`298 Patent, Claims 1-2; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 3-4.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 30
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`1. The 298 and 385 IPR Grounds
`2. The 298 and 385 Patents
`3. The 298 IPR
`A.
`Claim Construction: “Blocks”
`B.
`The Moshayedi Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`i.
`
`C.
`
`ii.
`
`i.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`The Sutardja Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`ii.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`PO’s Baseless Attacks Against Dr. Liu
`D.
`4. The 385 IPR Unique Issues
`A.
`The Moshayedi Ground 2 Renders Obvious Claims 12 and 13
`B.
`The Sutardja Ground 1 Renders Obvious Claim 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 31
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`The Petition Demonstrated That Moshayedi in View of Dusija Renders Obvious
`the Hot Block Limitations Under Two Independent Sets of Disclosures
`• As to the Moshayedi Grounds, the Petition relies on two sets of Moshayedi disclosures:
`Its physical erase count disclosures that swap data from frequently-written MLC blocks to SLC
`1.
`(using the erase count); and
`
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 60-65; Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), [0032], [0049]; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 6-7.
`
`2.
`
`Its logical write count disclosures that swap data from frequently-written MLC blocks to SLC (using
`the write count).
`
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 60-65; Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), [0024]; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 6-7.
`
`• The relevant logical write count disclosures are the same as the physical block erase count
`disclosures, other than the logical count distinction, and thus the following discussion focuses on the
`“swap” with respect the physical block erase count disclosures.
`
`- The logical write count disclosures separately render the claims unpatentable to the extent the
`Board rejects PO’s attempt to construe “blocks” as “physical blocks.”
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 60-65; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 15.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 32
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`The Petition Demonstrated That Moshayedi’s Erase Count Disclosures
`Disclose (and at Least Render Obvious) the Hot Block Limitations
`• The Petition demonstrated that when the erase count exceeds a threshold, the next write
`operation triggers a swap in which the MLC data is moved to SLC:
`
`• The Petition also demonstrated that it would have been obvious to perform the “swap” as a
`background operation (not in connection with a write operation).
`
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 64.
`
`Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), [0032];
`298 Petition (Paper 1), 63-64.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 33
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`The POPR Arguments
`
`• As to the erase count disclosures:
`- The POPR argued that Moshayedi discloses redirecting only the “data that is supposed to be
`written to the MLC block” to SLC.
`- The POPR argued that it would not be obvious for Moshayedi to move data from a physical block
`because Moshayedi states that the “swap” “occurs as part of the write process.”
`
`• As to the write count disclosures, the POPR additionally argued that Moshayedi’s write
`count does not satisfy the claims because it is an access count for “logical addresses,” not
`for “physical blocks” (which as discussed above, was rejected based on claim construction
`of “blocks”).
`
`298 POPR (Paper 10), 57-58.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 34
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`The Institution Decision: Moshayedi “Swap” Disclosures
`
`• The Board, at the institution phase, rejected PO’s arguments, citing: (1) Dr. Liu’s testimony
`explaining that the data associated with the MLC logical block is transferred to SLC and (2)
`Moshayedi’s disclosures do not mean that only “new” data (from the incoming write) is moved to
`SLC:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`298 ID (Paper 13), 30.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 35
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`The Institution Decision: Background Operations for Data Were Well
`Known
`• The Board, at the institution phase, noted that PO did not address the Petition’s supported
`showing that performing background operations that move data between MLC and SLC
`(and vice versa) was well known:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`298 ID (Paper 13), 31.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 36
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`1. The 298 and 385 IPR Grounds
`2. The 298 and 385 Patents
`3. The 298 IPR
`A.
`Claim Construction: “Blocks”
`B.
`The Moshayedi Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`i.
`
`C.
`
`ii.
`
`i.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`The Sutardja Grounds
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision
`
`ii.
`
`POR Arguments Fail
`PO’s Baseless Attacks Against Dr. Liu
`D.
`4. The 385 IPR Unique Issues
`A.
`The Moshayedi Ground 2 Renders Obvious Claims 12 and 13
`B.
`The Sutardja Ground 1 Renders Obvious Claim 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 37
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`PO Argument Fails: Summary
`
`• PO mounts a single attack: PO argues that Moshayedi does not disclose or render obvious
`the “transferring” limitation (“transferring the respective contents of those blocks to the at
`least one SLC non-volatile memory module”) because allegedly only “new” data
`(associated with the incoming write) is written to SLC.
`
`298 POR (Paper 18), 57-63; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 8.
`
`• This argument fails for three independent reasons:
`
`1. PO relies on an erroneous, implicit construction of the “transferring” limitation.
`
`2. PO misinterprets Moshayedi—Moshayedi discloses transferring contents from physical MLC blocks
`to physical SLC blocks (satisfying the limitation under its erroneous construction).
`
`3. PO fails to rebut the Petition’s showing that performing such operations (physical block data
`transfers) as background operations was both well known and had well-known benefits (satisfying
`the limitation under PO’s erroneous construction).
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 8-15.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 38
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`(1) PO’s Attempt to Improperly Import Limitations into the Transferring
`Limitation
`• PO’s attempt to distinguish Moshayedi lays bare its erroneous implicit construction:
`
`298 POR (Paper 18), 59; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 9.
`• PO’s attempt to rewrite the transferring limitation:
`- “by transferring the respective contents of [in] those [physical] blocks [before the allocation]”
`
`• PO, in sur-reply, doubles down that its basis for this implicit construction is construing
`“blocks” as “physical blocks” (arguing that its interpretation relies on “blocks” as “properly
`construed”).
`
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 7-8.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 39
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`(1) PO’s Erroneous Construction Fails On Multiple Grounds
`
`1. The claims recite “contents of those blocks,” and there is no basis to limit this to
`“contents in those physical blocks” (see supra).
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 9.
`2. There is no definition or disclaimer to limit the “transferring” to physical block content. If
`anything, the specification’s only example suggests transferring content of logical blocks
`(from a write operation) to SLC:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`298 Patent, 6:24-35;
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 9.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 40
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`(1) PO Erroneously Interprets Moshayedi as Only Transferring “New” Data
`to SLC
`• PO interprets Moshayedi’s swap as only redirecting a new block to SLC:
`
`298 POR (Paper 18), 57;
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 8.
`
`• This is incorrect (see infra).
`
`• But even if true, this would satisfy the transferring limitation under its plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 8.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 41
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`(1) There Can Be No Dispute That Moshayedi’s “New” Data Alone Satisfies
`the Transferring Limitation
`• The “new” data is “the respective contents of those blocks” (logical blocks of SLC) (i.e.,
`contents of an LBA that exceeds the write threshold).
`- Moshayedi expressly states that such “new” data is “associated with a particular LBA,” i.e., is the
`content of a logical block.
`• The write of that “new” data to SLC “transfer[s] the respective contents of those blocks to
`the at least one SLC non-volatile memory module”:
`
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 8.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), [0024];
`298 Reply (Paper 24), 8.
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 42
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`(2) PO Misinterprets Moshayedi by Attempting to Limit its “Swap” to Only
`“New” Data
`• As the Board correctly noted in the ID, PO has not shown that Moshayedi does not transfer
`data from physical MLC blocks to physical SLC blocks.
`
`298 ID (Paper 13), 30.
`
`• In addition to Moshayedi [0032] that the Board cites, the Petition cites Moshayedi [0049],
`which demonstrates that separate and apart from the transfer of “new” write data,
`Moshayedi discloses copying physical MLC block data to the SLC physical block:
`
`“new” data from write
`
`data from physical block
`
`empty physical block can
`be erased
`
`Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), [0049]; 298 Petition (Paper 1), 64.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 43
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`(2) The Reply Further Exposes PO’s Misinterpretation
`
`• The Reply further demonstrates PO’s error:
`
`Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), [0048]; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 12.
`
`data from physical block
`is copied to new physical
`block
`
`data from physical block
`is copied to new physical
`block
`
`Ex. 1012 (Moshayedi), [0059]; 298 Reply (Paper 24), 13.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547, -01548IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Micron Ex. 1069, p. 44
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01547, -01548
`
`
`
`(2) In Sur-reply, PO Does Not Address the Merits of the Reply’s Challenge
`to PO’s Interpretation of Moshayedi
`• In sur-reply, PO alleges only that the Petition does not cite certain of the preceding
`paragraphs for limitation [1.G] (¶¶ 47-48, 59, 68)—but completely ignores the description of
`the swap in ¶ 49.
`
`298 Sur-reply (Paper 32), 9.
`
`• The Reply properly expands its citations to respond to PO’s argument:
`- Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 707 (Fed. Cir. 202
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
