`
`VERVAINVERVAIN
`
`Demonstratives of Patent Owner
`Vervain LLC
`
`Case Nos.: IPR2021-01547, -01548, -01549, -01550
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Oral Hearing: January 12, 2023
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.1
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`The Challenged ’298, ’385, ’240, and ’300 Patents
`
`VERVAIN
`
`’298 Patent
`(-01547)
`
`’385 Patent
`(DIV of ’298) (-01548)
`
`’240 Patent
`(CON of ’385) (-01549)
`
`’300 Patent
`(CON of ’240) (-01550)
`
`-01547: Ex. 1001 at Cover
`
`-01548: Ex. 1003 at Cover
`
`-1549: Ex. 1005 at Cover
`
`-01550: Ex. 1007 at Cover
`
`-01547 Pet. at 1; -01548 Pet. at 1; -01549 Pet. at 1; -01550 Pet. at 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.2
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`’298 Patent (IPR2021-01547): Instituted Grounds
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claims 1-5 and 11 are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claims 8-9 are obvious over Dusija, Sutardja, and Li in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`Ground 3
`
`Claims 1-5 and 11 are obvious over Moshayedi and Dusija in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`Ground 4
`
`Claim 11 is obvious over Moshayedi, Dusija, and Sutardja in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`Ground 5
`
`Claims 8-9 are obvious over Moshayedi, Dusija, and Li in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`-01547 Instit. Dec. at 7, 8, 40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.3
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`’385 Patent (IPR2021-01548): Instituted Grounds
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Claims 1-5 and 11-13 are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja in view of
`knowledge of POSA
`Claims 1-5 and 11-13 are obvious over Moshayedi and Dusija in view
`of knowledge of POSA
`Claim 11 is obvious over Moshayedi, Dusija, and Sutardja in view of
`knowledge of POSA
`
`-01548 Instit. Dec. at 9, 42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.4
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`’240 Patent (IPR2021-01549): Instituted Grounds
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja in view of
`knowledge of POSA
`Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are obvious over Dusija, Sutardja, and Chin in
`view of knowledge of POSA
`
`-01549 Instit. Dec. at 5, 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.5
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`’300 Patent (IPR2021-01550): Instituted Grounds
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are obvious over Dusija in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claim 10 is obvious over Dusija and Sutardja in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`-01550 Instit. Dec. at 6, 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.6
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`VERVAIN
`
`1. Micron’s Expert is not credible on several issues
`
`1.1 Sutardja’s First and Second Memories
`
`1.2 Dr. Rao’s Controller
`
`1.3 Dusija’s Preferred Embodiment
`
`2. ’298 patent (IPR2021-01547)
`
`3. ’385 patent (IPR2021-01548)
`
`4. ’240 patent (IPR2021-01549)
`
`5. ’300 patent (IPR2021-01550)
`
`-01547 PO Resp. at 23-27, 51-55; Sur-Reply at 21-25
`-01550: PO Resp. at 39-42; Sur-Reply at 21-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.7
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Micron’s Expert Is Not Credible On Several Issues
`
`VERVAIN
`
`“If the Board finds he gave inconsistent
`testimony, the Board shall consider the
`impact on the specific patents at issue in the
`trial testimony as well as on his credibility as
`a whole.”
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original)
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 23-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.8
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Sutardja
`
`VERVAIN
`
`– 01547: Ex. 1011 (Sutardja) at ¶ 0108
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.9
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`I understand that's what you’re trying to establish, but you haven't
`provided support in Sutardja, and you haven’t explained any such
`support, as to the first or the second memory being exclusively
`MLC or SLC; correct?
`I believe I stated very clear, and I believe that a POSA looking at it
`will find it obvious. And so, to the extent -- to the extent -- to be
`quite honest, it is my opinion that the POSA will find it obvious,
`and that's the only way, that the first NVS is MLC and second NVS
`SLC.
`To try to say it other- -- it's not obvious to a POSA -- to try to say
`otherwise I don't believe is credible. I believe it’s not -- it's not
`genuine. Yeah.
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 99:1-17
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 21-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.10
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q.
`
`In your previous response, you said "that's the only way,"
`regarding first MLC, second SLC, and you also said "to try to say
`otherwise I don't believe is credible."
`Do you stand by those statements?
`A. What I meant -- I didn't say --
`I did not use the way it worked. I'm just saying that for the
`conclusion, given all the information in the conclusion, that is the
`most obvious. Maybe I will take -- take back the "only." That's the
`most obvious. First --
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 101:3-16
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.11
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`A.
`
`Q. And is an implementation in Sutardja of first memory being SLC
`and second memory being MLC a credible implementation, in
`your opinion?
`I would not use the word "credible." I should not have used the
`word "credible." But I will say that – because the statement 108
`clearly says "may," but that statement has to be taken in context
`with other things. We will actually run into certain -- I wouldn't
`even use the word "contradiction," but I would say that it may not
`jibe with the general knowledge of the characteristic of SLC and
`MLC.
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 128:6-19
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.12
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. Putting aside what embodiment you consider most obvious, I'm
`asking what Sutardja discloses. Do you understand there is a
`difference between something being disclosed and something
`being obvious?
`A. So, that's fine, but I'm just saying that Sutardja also described --
`described the first memory being MLC and second memory
`being SLC.
`Q. And Sutardja describes the reverse; correct?
`A. Sutardja never explicitly described the reverse. Sutardja say
`"may," "may," but never explicitly, whereas Sutardja does explicitly
`mention that first NVS being SLC and second NVS being SLC.
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 112:16-113:8
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.13
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`A. So, to make sure I explain clearly, so if I make the first one -- let's
`say for Vervain the sake of argument, just render my -- if I make
`the first one SLC, and the second one necessarily will have to be S
`-- or if I make the first one SLC, the second one necessarily would
`have to be MLC. And vice-versa, I can also crisscross -- if the first
`one is MLC, the second one is SLC.
`So, this is almost like a permutation you can pick, but you can
`only pick one for the first one, and the other, the second one will
`have to be what – it cannot be the same as the first one.
`Otherwise, it will not be a hybrid system. The second one would
`have to be the other memory type.
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 198:24-199:15
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.14
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`– 01547: Ex. 1009 (Liu Decl.) at ¶ 154
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.15
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. You talked about going around a lot of these clues that
`Sutardja gave. You didn't discuss any of that in your
`original declaration for limitation 1.G; correct?
`A. I believe we went through this, and in the deposition I
`asked for opportunity to explain, and I believe in this
`case, I -- again, let me just state simply, I described the
`first memory is MLC, second memory is SLC, and as a
`POSA, this is the obvious implementation. Okay?
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 106:19-107:5
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.16
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`A. And I will be happy to walk through the logical
`deduction, but -- so, my statement in the first
`declaration simply is of that, that is the most obvious to
`– from Sutardja's teaching, that the first memory is MLC
`and second memory is SLC. I stated clearly.
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 100:21-101:2
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.17
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.1 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Sutardja’s First and Second NVS Memories
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. In your original declaration, you did not describe
`anything being obvious about exclusively having
`one MLC and another memory SLC; correct?
`A. Perhaps I give credit too much to other people
`thinking the same -- thinking of the most obvious
`way, but I disclose clearly first memory is MLC,
`second memory is SLC.
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 107:20-108:3
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.18
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`VERVAIN
`
`1. Micron’s Expert is not credible on several issues
`
`1.1 Sutardja’s First and Second Memories
`
`1.2 Dr. Rao’s Controller
`
`1.3 Dusija’s Preferred Embodiment
`
`2. ’298 patent (IPR2021-01547)
`
`3. ’385 patent (IPR2021-01548)
`
`4. ’240 patent (IPR2021-01549)
`
`5. ’300 patent (IPR2021-01550)
`
`-01547 PO Resp. at 23-27, 51-55; Sur-Reply at 21-25
`-01550 PO Resp. at 39-42; Sur-Reply at 21-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.19
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Controller in the ’298 Patent
`
`VERVAIN
`
`-01547 Resp. at 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`-01547: Ex. 1001 at 3:1-13
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.20
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding the ’298 Specification
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. The sentence which you just read aloud describes the
`controller using a physical block; correct?
`A. It's -- to a POSA, it conveys much more, but the
`controller's wear leveling algorithm, the wear leveling
`algorithm is based on a mapping of logical block to
`physical block, and knowing -- and then also keeping
`track of -- of the counts to a logical block as well as to a
`physical block, and then based on that information, the
`controller will decide the logical block mapping to the
`physical block and which physical block to use when the
`data is programmed.
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 41:8-22
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.21
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding the ’298 Specification
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. So, to summarize, the controller does determine which physical block to
`use; correct?
`A. My -- my point is that if you read the sentence, "eliminating the
`relevance of the physical location of data," so controller sees --
`controller use logical block address, and based on the logical block
`address, you have different wear leveling algorithm, and that's taught
`quite well by the prior art, and you count both the access to the logical
`block, and you also count the access to the physical block, and you make
`a determination, first, this logical block, that's where I am going to map
`to the physical block, such that -- so that the physical location of data is -
`- is -- the relevance of the physical location of data is eliminated is purely
`based on the wear leveling, and based on the connection between the
`logical block and physical block.
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 41:23-42:18
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.22
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding the ’298 Specification
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. I don't think you answered my question, Dr. Liu. I am
`basically noting that the sentence starting at column
`three, line one, literally says that the controller
`determines which physical block to use, and I am asking
`you if you agree with that.
`Do you agree with the sentence saying that the
`controller determines which physical block to use? Yes or
`no, please.
`A. I disagree. The sentence says "the controller's wear
`leveling algorithm," and I am trying to provide the
`context of the wear leveling algorithm.
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 42:19-43:6
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.23
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding the ’298 Specification
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. In that context, yes, or in that context, no?
`A. In the context that it is the controller's wear leveling
`algorithm that determines, therefore if -- see, so you can
`-- under that context, you can say that the controller
`determines.
`Q. Determines what?
`A. Which physical block to use. So, it's -- it's the wear
`leveling algorithm of the controller that determines
`which physical block to use. How about that?
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 45:13-24
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.24
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding the ’298 Specification
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. Yes. I see that's what the sentence says. And because the
`wear leveling algorithm is the controller's wear leveling
`algorithm, the controller is determining which physical
`block to use; correct?
`A. That's not what the specification says, and I -- I think I
`answered the question very clear. The controller's wear
`leveling algorithm determines, so the wear leveling
`algorithm of the controller determines. So, that's the
`extent, and if you want to add something to it, I stand by
`my testimony.
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 45:25-46:12
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.25
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding the ’298 Specification
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. Would a person of ordinary skill have understood the
`controller of the ’298 patent to be determining which
`physical block to use? Yes or no, please. Would they have
`that understanding or would they not?
`A. It's not a yes-or-no question, because you are qualifying
`-- in that case, if you put a lot of qualifying context, you
`would have to say that the controller would have to have
`the proper wear leveling algorithm.
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 47:14-25
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.26
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.2 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding the ’298 Specification
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. You still haven't answered the question, which seems to
`be apparent from the words on the page.· So, I will give
`you another chance to answer it, and then I’m going to
`move on.
`Are you disagreeing with the controller determining
`which physical block to use each time data is
`programmed?
`A. Again, let me say that the wear leveling algorithm of the
`controller determines which physical block to use.
`
`-01547 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2020 at 48:12-23
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.27
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`VERVAIN
`
`1. Micron’s Expert is not credible on several issues
`
`1.1 Sutardja’s First and Second Memories
`
`1.2 Dr. Rao’s Controller
`
`1.3 Dusija’s Preferred Embodiment
`
`2. ’298 patent (IPR2021-01547)
`
`3. ’385 patent (IPR2021-01548)
`
`4. ’240 patent (IPR2021-01549)
`
`5. ’300 patent (IPR2021-01550)
`
`-01547 PO Resp. at 23-27, 51-55; Sur-Reply at 21-25
`-01550: PO Resp. at 39-42; Sur-Reply at 21-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.28
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`A.
`
`Q. And you have not stated in either of your declarations, your
`original declaration or your reply declaration, that Dusija's
`preferred embodiment discloses caching data in the flash
`memory?
`Correct?
`I testified that the preferred embodiment, based on the
`language, is under the alternative embodiment. When Dusija
`introduced figure to illustrate first memory being used to store the
`data, Dusija used the word as an "alternative embodiment." I’m
`simply referring to that. And then after that, there are statements
`to the effect that preferred embodiment under the context of the
`alternative embodiment.
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 12:4-20
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.29
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. Can there be an alternative embodiment under a
`preferred embodiment?
`A. If it is alternative embodiment under a preferred
`embodiment, then I would think that it would be
`specified as the preferred embodiment under preferred
`embodiment, or the first embodiment under the
`preferred embodiment.
`I am not sure the context of "alternative." It seems like
`"alternative“ is a -- is -- the word "alternative" means it's
`-- it has connotation of being a replacement, being a
`replacement for the primary embodiment.
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 13:8-22
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 21-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.30
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q.
`
`I'm trying to understand your terminology, Dr. Liu. Is primary
`embodiment the same as preferred embodiment in your testimony?
`A. As I testified in my first deposition, there are primary embodiments
`under the context of alternative embodiment -- there are preferred
`embodiments under the context of alternative embodiment. Let me just
`make sure the record is clean. I'm sorry for messing up.
`***
`To the extent I'm not here trying to -- to define "primary." I'm simply
`trying to -- at the time, trying to help us avoid the confusion, because I
`was using the word and you were using the word "preferred." I was just
`trying to categorize which preferred embodiment was under the context
`of alternative embodiment.
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 18:1-11; 18:21-19:3
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.31
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. You spoke a few minutes ago about a replacement for
`the primary embodiment as being an alternative
`embodiment; correct?
`A. I'm not here to define “alternative.” I’m sorry.
`I'm not here to define “alternative.” I'm simply saying
`that Dusija used "alternative."· That means that it is not
`the primary …
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 21-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 14:21-15:7
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.32
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q.
`
`Is there in Dusija a preferred embodiment which is not under an alternative
`embodiment?
`
`A.
`
`Let's go to Dusija.
`
`If you read paragraph 18, there is talk about the general aspect of the invention. It
`talks about data is written to the second portion. Afterward, the data is read back.
`Okay. It's read back to check for errors. Reading back. So, that is mentioned, and it is
`also mentioned in the context of ECC. Okay.
`
`So, this is mentioned first and foremost with a read back, and then the paragraph
`after that, "in an alternative embodiment" that is mentioned. So, there is a general -
`- for the lack of better word, general embodiment or general scope of the
`·invention, which involves read back, and then there is this "in an alternative
`embodiment“ of first memory used to store incoming data.
`
`That is my testimony, and that is the basis of my declaration and my deposition --
`and my testimony in my deposition.
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 29:6-30:7
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.33
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`– 01550: Ex. 1010 (Dusija) at ¶¶ 0019-0021
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.34
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. Dr. Liu, you agree that when "the preferred
`embodiment" is mentioned in paragraph 21, there are
`only two possibilities. It either means the same thing as
`"one preferred embodiment" of paragraph 19, or it
`means a different thing. You agree those are the only
`two possibilities; correct?
`A. The reason -- Counsel, I'm trying to -- it's my job as an
`expert not only to answer questions truthfully, but also
`to educate and provide the proper context. I'm -- the
`reason some of the questions are a little difficult is
`because they may be taken out of context.
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 38:18-39:11
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.35
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. Is paragraph 21 further narrowing details
`regarding paragraph 19?
`A. Under the context of paragraph -- you have
`paragraph 19, and you have an alternative
`embodiment, and -- and within the alternative
`embodiment, you have the preferred
`embodiment, which is paragraph 21.
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 42:13-19
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.36
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q.
`
`Is there in Dusija a preferred embodiment which is not under an
`alternative embodiment?
`A. Let's go to Dusija.
`
`***
`So, this is mentioned first and foremost with a read back, and then
`the paragraph after that, "in an alternative embodiment" that is
`mentioned. So, there is a general -- for the lack of better word,
`general embodiment or general scope of the ·invention, which
`involves read back, and then there is this "in an alternative
`embodiment“ of first memory used to store incoming data. That is
`my testimony, and that is the basis of my declaration and my
`deposition -- and my testimony in my deposition.
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 29:6-11, 29:20-30:7
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.37
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`– 01550: Ex. 1057 (Liu Reply Decl.) at ¶ 64
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.38
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Khatri’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Khatri
`
`-01550 PO Resp. at 55-56; Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2014 (Khatri Decl.) at ¶ 98
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.39
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. You don't think a primary concern for caching operations is speed?
`A. In the context of flash memory cache. Also --
`Q. Is that a yes or a no, please? I can't tell if you are agreeing or
`disagreeing.
`A. I do not -- I do not agree necessarily the primary concern. I say
`one concern. You have to present it in the whole picture with
`everything under consideration.
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 169:8-20
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.40
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`So, is it your opinion that whether the cache
`should be fast depends on the type of
`memory, in terms of whether it is flash
`memory or not flash memory?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Let me answer this way. If compared with
`MLC and SLC, if I use SLC to cache for MLC,
`yes, SLC is faster in terms of caching for MLC.·
`That's correct.
`
`Now, if I am using RAM as caching for non-
`volatile memory, then RAM is faster -- RAM
`has faster caching speed than non-volatile
`memory.
`
`So, everything has context. So, in the -- in the
`paragraph 98, Dr. Khatri mentioned caching
`speed, and it's not in the context of flash
`memory caching.
`
`Now, I can take that caching --
`
`Dr. Khatri's -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. I didn't
`know you weren't done.
`
`I can take the caching in many, many
`comparison. I just said it. Between SLC/MLC,
`SLC could be used as MLC's cache, because
`SLC is faster than MLC. Now, in terms of
`between RAM and non-volatile memory, in
`that case RAM would be better caching speed
`than a non-volatile memory. That's why we --
`I said it already. That's why we use RAM as
`buffer in the controller for the data that
`comes in from the host very fast, and cache
`memory cannot take it right away, and that's
`why we cache it.
`
`So, I agree a primary concern for caching
`operation is speed, but it has to have context.
`…
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 178:2-179:12
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.41
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`1.3 Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding Dusija (’300 IPR)
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`Q. You stated, "I agree a primary concern for caching
`operation is speed," in your previous response; correct?
`A. I'm saying the statement of a primary concern for
`caching operation is speed, that statement is true, but
`it has to have a context of relative -- relativity, in terms of
`comparison.
`
`-01550 Sur-Reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`– 01550: Ex. 2020 at 180:1-8
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.42
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`’298 Patent (IPR2021-01547): Instituted Grounds
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claims 1-5 and 11 are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claims 8-9 are obvious over Dusija, Sutardja, and Li in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`Ground 3
`
`Ground 4
`
`Claims 1-5 and 11 are obvious over Moshayedi and Dusija in view of knowledge of
`POSA
`Claim 11 is obvious over Moshayedi, Dusija, and Sutardja in view of knowledge of
`POSA
`
`Ground 5
`
`Claims 8-9 are obvious over Moshayedi, Dusija, and Li in view of knowledge of POSA
`
`-01547 Instit. Dec. at 7, 8, 40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.43
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`VERVAIN
`
`1. Micron’s Expert is not credible on several issues
`
`2. ’298 patent (IPR2021-01547)
`2.1 Claim construction for “blocks”
`
`2.2 Dusija-Sutardja does not disclose or suggest determining which
`of the blocks are accessed most frequently (limitation [1.F])
`2.3 Dusija-Sutardja does not disclose or suggest transferring
`contents of blocks to SLC (limitation [1.G])
`2.4 Moshayedi-Dusija does not disclose or suggest transferring
`contents of blocks to SLC (limitation [1.G])
`2.5 Moshayedi’s logical block addresses do not disclose or suggest
`“blocks” (limitations [1.F]-[1.G])
`
`3. ’385 patent (IPR2021-01548)
`
`4. ’240 patent (IPR2021-01549)
`
`5. ’300 patent (IPR2021-01550)
`
`-01547 Resp. at 23-27; Sur-Reply at 1-6, 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.44
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 “Blocks”
`
`VERVAIN
`
`-01547 Resp. at 23-27, Sur-Reply at 1-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`-01547: Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.45
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 PO’s Construction of “Blocks” Should Be Adopted
`
`VERVAIN
`
`“Blocks”
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Petitioner
`
`“In the context of the ’298 Patent, a ‘block’
`(singular form of the plural ‘blocks’ recited in claim
`1) should be construed as ‘in a non-volatile
`memory, a physical group of memory cells that
`must be erased together.’”
`
`“For good reason, the Board already rejected PO’s
`attempt to limit ‘blocks’ to ‘physical blocks.’”
`
`-01547: Resp. at 23
`
`-01547: Reply at 2
`
`-01547 Resp. at 23; Reply at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.46
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 SLC and MLC Flash Memory
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Khatri
`
`-01547 PO Resp. at 3-5; Sur-Reply at 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2014 (Khatri Decl.) at ¶ 31
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.47
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 Controller in Claim 1 of ’298 Patent
`
`VERVAIN
`
`-01547 Resp. at 24-25, Sur-Reply at 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`-01547: Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.48
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 PO’s Construction of “Blocks” Should be Adopted
`
`VERVAIN
`
`-01547 Resp. at 24-25, Sur-Reply at 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`– 01547: Ex. 1001 at 2:65-3:13
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.49
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 Host Processor 12 and Controller 14 of ’298 Patent
`
`VERVAIN
`
`-01547 Resp. at 24; Sur-Reply at 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`– 01547: Ex. 1001 at FIG. 1
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.50
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 PO’s Construction of “Blocks” Should be Adopted
`
`VERVAIN
`
`– 01547: Ex. 1001 at 2:43-45
`
`“-01547 Resp. at 25-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.51
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 Dr. Khatri’s Testimony Regarding “Blocks”
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Khatri
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2014 (Khatri Decl.) at ¶ 46
`
`-01547 Resp. at 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.52
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 Dr. Khatri’s Testimony Regarding “Blocks”
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Khatri
`
`-01547 Resp. at 25-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2014 (Khatri Decl.) at ¶ 47
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.53
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 ’298 Specification and Dr. Liu’s Testimony Regarding “Blocks”
`
`VERVAIN
`
``
`
`– 01547: Ex. 1001 at 2:43-45
`
`Dr. Liu
`
`A.
`
`Q. You said in your response that an erase is simply having a smaller
`amount of electrons on the floating gate; right?
`In the context what we just described in paragraph 46, where, again,
`to the host is really the convention of logical state that the host will
`see. So, in the context of a floating-gate NAND structure, the way
`the host can see a logical one for erase is having a small amount of
`charge on the floating gate.
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2015 (Liu Depo.) at 30:4-18
`
`-01547 Resp. at 25-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.54
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 Dr. Khatri’s Testimony Regarding Erasing Flash Memory Cells
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Dr. Khatri
`
`-01547 Resp. at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`– 01547: Ex. 2014 (Khatri Decl.) at ¶¶ 25-26
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.55
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.1 Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`VERVAIN
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`-01557 Sur-Reply at 5
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.56
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`VERVAIN
`
`1. Micron’s Expert is not credible on several issues
`
`2. ’298 patent (IPR2021-01547)
`2.1 Claim construction for “blocks”
`
`2.2 Dusija-Sutardja does not disclose or suggest determining
`which of the blocks are accessed most frequently (limitation [1.F])
`2.3 Dusija-Sutardja does not disclose or suggest transferring
`contents of blocks to SLC (limitation [1.G])
`2.4 Moshayedi-Dusija does not disclose or suggest transferring
`contents of blocks to SLC (limitation [1.G])
`2.5 Moshayedi’s logical block addresses do not disclose or suggest
`“blocks” (limitations [1.F]-[1.G])
`
`3. ’385 patent (IPR2021-01548)
`
`4. ’240 patent (IPR2021-01549)
`
`5. ’300 patent (IPR2021-01550)
`
`-01547 Resp. at 39-43; Sur-Reply at 12-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.57
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.2 Claim 1 of the ’298 Patent
`
`VERVAIN
`
`Limitation
`[1.F]
`
`Limitation
`[1.G]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`-01547: Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`
`Vervain Ex 2022, p.58
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01549
`
`
`
`2.2 Limitation
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
