`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., and
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS LLC,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NETLIST, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW
`
`
`1 Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron
`Technology Texas LLC filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-00406
`and have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
` Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 7
`A.
`The Board Abused Its Discretion by Making a Case
`Dispositive Factual Finding That Contradicts the
`Petition and Is Contrary to Evidence Patent Owner
`Sought to Enter into the Record ............................................... 7
`The Petition Did Not Suggest That the Encoded
`Information Received by the AMB are Data, Address,
`and Control Signals .................................................................. 7
`The Board Declined to Enter into the Record Contrary
`Evidence Patent Owner Sought to Admit ................................ 9
`Patent Owner Never Conceded that the FBDIMM
`AMB Receives Data, Address, or Control Signals in
`Any Form ............................................................................... 11
`The Board Effectively Absolved Petitioners of Their
`Obligations Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................. 12
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 13
`Brand v. Miller,
`487 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 14
`Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC,
`966 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 15
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. LoganTree, LP,
`825 F. App’x 894 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 8
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 9
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ........................................................................................ 12
`Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC,
`872 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 10
`VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.,
`778 F. App’x 897 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 11
`In re Zurko,
`258 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 15
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii) ...................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 1, 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) and the Revised Interim Director Review
`
`Process of July 24, 2023, Patent Owner respectfully requests Director Review of the
`
`Board’s Final Written Decision (Paper 49 (“FWD”)).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board’s Final Written Decision finding claims 1-30 of the ’918 Patent
`
`unpatentable should be reversed for at least two reasons: 1) the Board abused its
`
`discretion by making a case dispositive finding that is contrary to the position argued
`
`in the Petition and contrary to admissions by two of Petitioner Micron’s corporate
`
`representatives in district court proceedings that Patent Owner sought to enter into
`
`the record, and 2) the Board effectively absolved Petitioners of their obligations
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 to “specify where each element of the claim is found in
`the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon” by making a dispositive
`
`finding contrary to the Petition.
`
`This Request presents important issues of policy and practice that require
`
`Director Review: whether a case dispositive finding that is inconsistent with the
`
`Petition and contrary to the testimony of two of Petitioner Micron’s corporate
`
`representatives that the Board declined to enter into the record is an abuse of
`
`discretion. To be clear, Patent Owner in no way seeks to impugn the integrity or
`
`professionalism of the Panel. The questions presented in this request are not the
`
`subject of clear guidance from the Director.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`II. BACKGROUND
`The ’918 Patent relates to computer memory modules. Each claim requires
`
`the memory module to include, among other things, an “interface including a
`
`plurality of edge connections configured to couple power, data, address and control
`
`signals between the memory module and the host system.” EX1001, 38:21-24 (claim
`
`1), 39:56-59 (claim 16), 40:53-56 (claim 23). The specification teaches that this is
`
`achieved by using a memory module interface with edge connections that “provide[]
`
`a conduit for power voltage as well as data, address, and control signals between the
`
`memory system 1010 [e.g., a memory module] and the host system.” Id., 22:3-6.
`
`Petitioners2 relied on Harris (EX1023) and two documents they refer to as
`
`“FBDIMM Standards” (EX1027 and EX1028) allegedly implemented by Harris for
`
`this limitation. The Petition describes an FBDIMM or fully-buffered dual inline
`
`memory module including an advanced memory buffer (“AMB”) that receives
`
`packetized information from the host via the edge connections of the memory
`
`module, decodes the received information, and outputs data, address and control
`
`signals based on the decoded information to memory devices. EX1027, p.4;
`
`
`2 The Micron Petitioners were joined to this proceeding. See Paper 26. Micron
`
`
`and Samsung are co-petitioners in several other IPRs involving Netlist’s patents.
`
`E.g., IPR2022-00615, -00639, -00711, -00999, -01427, and -01428.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`EX1028, p.29 (FB-DIMM Channel Signals are those received via the DIMM edge
`
`connections and DDR2 Interface Signals are those output from the AMB to the
`
`DDR2 memory devices); POR (Paper 21) 11-15. The Petition (excerpted below)
`
`identified data, address, and control signals generated on the module (by the AMB)
`
`as meeting the limitation, despite the fact that the claim requires these signals to be
`
`coupled between the host system and memory module through the edge connections.
`
`
`
`Excerpts from Pet. 21-23
`
`(highlightling in original,
`
`
`
`red and blue text added).
`
`Host system
`
`sends encoded
`packets
`
`Alleged
`“data
`signals”
`
`Signals in red created
`on memory module
`
`
`As explained in the POR, “the DIMM and the AMB do not receive identified
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`data signals (DQ0-DQ63) or address and control signals (A0-A15, RAS, CAS, WE)
`
`from the host,” but instead “those are signals generated by the AMB based on … the
`
`‘FB-DIMM Channel Signals’ received from the host.” POR 11. Petitioners’ expert
`
`agrees, stating “the AMB buffers and converts the bi-directional communications
`
`with data, address, and control signal information into data, address, and control
`
`signals for the memory devices.” EX1003 (Dr. Wolfe Decl.), ¶ 230.
`
`Importantly, the Petition did not acknowledge the fact that the relied-upon
`
`signals are generated on the module, based on encoded information received from
`
`the host. As such, the Petition presented no argument that the encoded information
`
`received by the module met the claim limitation. And the Reply (Paper 25) did not
`
`deny that the Petition pointed solely to the signals transmitted between the AMB and
`
`the DRAMs for the recited data, control and address signals, instead of those
`
`received from the host via the edge connections.
`
`In an attempt to cure that deficiency, the Reply argued for the first time that
`
`“signals received by the AMB on the FBDIMM result in ‘data, address, and control
`
`signals needed by the DDR2 SDRAMs,’” and thus “the AMB must necessarily
`
`couple data, address, and control signals from the host system to the memory
`
`module.” Reply 9 (emphasis in original). The Reply offered no support for this
`
`conclusory position. Further, the claims do not recite a buffer coupling signals
`
`between the host and memory module, but edge connections configured to do so.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`In Sur-Reply (Paper 31), Netlist pointed out the abandonment of the Petition
`
`and its improper new arguments. See Sur-Reply 6-10. And at argument, Patent
`
`Owner emphasized that the claimed signals “must come from the host system” and
`
`the “failure of evidence in [the] petition.” Paper 47, 66:16-24.
`
`Patent Owner also notified the Board that “in a concurrently pending district
`
`court litigation, a deposition transcript of Micron’s corporate representative …
`
`shows Petitioner is taking positions that are inconsistent with those advanced in these
`
`proceedings.” Paper 42, 2. Patent Owner filed an opposed Motion to Submit
`
`Supplemental Information, which explained that, in a parallel litigation between
`
`Netlist and Micron involving the ’918 Patent, Micron designated Mr. Boe
`
`Holbrook—employed at Micron since 2002 as a “Senior Electrical Engineer”
`
`working in the field of memory systems—as its 30(b)(6) corporate representative on
`
`“all facts and circumstances” relating to non-infringement. Paper 43, 1. At his
`
`August 30, 2023 deposition, Mr. Holbrook agreed that in the context of “how
`
`memory devices are controlled on a module in respect to FBDIMM,” there is “a
`
`difference between encoded data and data signals.” Id. at 3.3 On the same day as
`
`the FWD, the Board denied Netlist’s motion, concluding that “the proffered
`
`testimony is [allegedly] not relevant in this proceeding” and stating incorrectly
`
`
`3 Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise indicated.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`Netlist’s position as “not argu[ing] that the encoded data received by an FBDIMM
`
`AMB do not contain data, address, and control signals,” but rather contesting the
`
`“format of the … signals, not their content.” Paper 48, 3; contra Sur-Reply 8.
`
`On November 22, 2023, Patent Owner alerted the Board as quickly as possible
`
`that “Micron has recently replaced Mr. Holbrook on technical infringement matters
`
`with a different representative, Mr. Scott Cyr,” who was deposed on November 20.
`
`EX2072, 4. Mr. Cyr testified that sending address and control signals from the host
`
`system to the memory module is a “different technology” than delivering packetized
`
`information from a host system to an AMB on a FBDIMM (id.), which directly
`
`undercuts Petitioners’ Reply arguments. Netlist sought leave to submit this
`
`additional testimony “without any argument or explanation.” Id. at 5. On November
`
`29, the Board denied Netlist’s request for leave, stating simply that the “requests
`
`come too late in these proceedings to be considered and in any case would not be
`
`helpful to resolving the issues presented in these cases.” Id. at 1.
`
`The Board issued the Final Written Decision on December 6, accepting
`
`Petitioners’ new attorney argument from the Reply that the encoded information
`
`received by an FBDIMM memory module satisfies the “data, address, and control
`
`signals” limitation of the claims. FWD 56. The Board incorrectly stated that
`
`“Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that FBDIMM AMB receives information that
`
`contains data, address, and control signals encoded in packetized, serialized form at
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`its edge connections.” FWD 55. Patent Owner did not agree that the packetized,
`
`serialized information received by the AMB represents a “form” of the recited data,
`
`address, and control signals. Nor did the Petition make this assertion, or present any
`
`evidence in support of it.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. The Board Abused Its Discretion by Making a Case Dispositive
`Factual Finding That Contradicts the Petition and Is Contrary to
`Evidence Patent Owner Sought to Enter into the Record
`The Board found, without citation or explanation, “that the data, address, and
`
`control signals of Harris and the FBDIMM Standards as received at edge
`
`connections coupling the memory module and host system satisfy [the] claim
`
`limitation,” and the similarly unsupported assertion that “the signals [being]
`
`encoded, packetized, and serialized does not change the fact that they are data,
`
`address, and control signals.” FWD 56. That finding contradicts the Petition, and is
`
`directly contradicted by the testimony from Petitioner Micron’s 30(b)(6)
`
`representatives that Patent Owner sought to enter into the record.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Did Not Suggest That the Encoded Information
`Received by the AMB are Data, Address, and Control Signals
`The Petition pointed only to the signals generated on-module by the AMB as
`
`satisfying the recited “data, address, and control signals.” See Pet. 22-23 (identifying
`
`data signals DQ0-DQ63, address signals A0-A15, and control signals RAS, CAS,
`
`WE, and CS). The Petition did not even mention that these signals are generated on
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`the module based on encoded information received from the host. See supra, Section
`
`II. Nor did Petitioners submit a reply declaration or other record evidence supporting
`
`the Board’s finding that the encoded, packetized information received by an
`
`FBDIMM constitute—in some form—the recited signals. (Petitioners rely on
`
`EX1077, which is from an unrelated matter and does not characterize anything as a
`
`“signal” as confirmed by expert testimony. See Reply 7-8; EX1077, 8-9; EX1075,
`
`218:5-219:11). Moreover, Petitioners never sought a claim construction that would
`
`include encoded, packetized information.
`
`Thus, only Petitioners’ reply attorney argument can support the Board’s
`
`finding. “Bare assertion through implication that a reference discloses a claim
`
`limitation, without more, is not enough to meet [Petitioners’] burden.” Garmin Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. LoganTree, LP, 825 F. App’x 894, 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-precedential).
`
`Moreover, the Board’s factual finding is also contrary to the relevant expert
`
`testimony. Dr. Mangione-Smith testified, citing competent evidence, that “the AMB
`
`receives data, address and control information, decodes it and generates the data,
`
`address, and control signals needed by the DDR2 SDRAMs.” EX2031, ¶ 31; see
`
`also id., ¶¶ 32-34. Even Petitioners’ expert agrees there is a difference. See, e.g.,
`
`EX1003, ¶ 230 (stating that “the AMB buffers and converts the bi-directional
`
`communications with data, address, and control signal information into data,
`
`address, and control signals for the memory devices”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`In short, the finding that information contained in the packetized, serialized
`
`“FBDIMM Channel Signals” constitutes the claimed data, address, and control
`
`signals contradicts both the Petition and the expert testimony. See FWD 55-56. Like
`
`the petitioner in Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
`
`Petitioners’ Reply relied on an “unsupported and inferential” theory. Id. at 1363. In
`
`that case, the petitioner failed to “relate what appears to be generic multiplexing and
`
`bit rate adjustment” to a claim requiring specific timing. See id. Likewise, Petitioners
`
`here rely on “signals” and “information” but fail to explain how they satisfy the
`
`specific claim language at issue. See Paper 46, 1 (“The question is whether the
`
`encoded data packets are these four specific signals. Not whether an encoded data
`
`packet is generically a ‘signal.’”).
`
`C. The Board Declined to Enter into the Record Contrary Evidence
`Patent Owner Sought to Admit
`The Board declined to consider directly relevant testimony by Petitioner
`
`Micron’s corporate representatives in a co-pending district court litigation.
`
`Specifically, the Board dismissed material evidence on a case-dispositive issue as
`
`“not relevant in this proceeding” (Paper 48, 3) or not “helpful to resolving the issues
`
`presented in these cases” EX2072, 1. As Patent Owner explained, because
`
`Petitioners’ Reply newly argued that the encoded signals received by the AMB
`
`contain the claimed signals or otherwise satisfy the claim language—attorney
`
`argument the Board later adopted—the contradictory testimony of Micron’s
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`corporate representatives is directly relevant, particularly in view of the dearth of
`
`evidence supporting Petitioners’ theory. See Paper 46, 1-2.
`
`Considering this testimony was appropriate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b)
`
`because it could not have been obtained earlier (see, e.g., Paper 43, 5), and because
`
`the interest of justice requires consideration of sworn testimony from a Petitioner’s
`
`corporate representatives that conflicts with Petitioners’ positions in this proceeding.
`
`Cf. Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The
`
`Board offers no reasoned basis why it would not be in the interest of justice to
`
`consider sworn inconsistent testimony on the identical issue.”).
`
`Indeed, this is precisely the type of evidence that parties are obligated to serve.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii) (providing that “a party must serve relevant
`
`information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the
`
`proceeding”). Here, Petitioner Micron not only failed to serve such evidence, it also
`
`obstructed Netlist’s attempts to introduce it in this proceeding through improperly
`
`broad protective-order designations. See, e.g., Paper 42, 2; Paper 43, 5.
`
`As in Ultratec, where the Federal Circuit vacated final written decisions
`
`because the Board failed to consider testimony from one of the experts in parallel
`
`litigation, “[t]his is not evidence that could have been located earlier through a more
`
`diligent or exhaustive search; it did not exist during the IPR discovery period,” and
`
`“[t]he fact that [Netlist] could have, but did not, depose and obtain inconsistent
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`testimony from [Micron] during the IPR itself is not a basis for concluding
`
`otherwise.” Ultratec, 872 F.3d at 1272 (emphasis in original). As such, the Board
`
`further abused its discretion by preventing Patent Owner from at least moving to
`
`admit directly relevant evidence. In a similar context, the Federal Circuit has found
`
`that “the Board abused its discretion in denying [patent owner] the ability to even
`
`file a motion” to “show the evidence that it had.” VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners
`
`Master Fund, Ltd., 778 F. App’x 897, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (non-precedential).
`
`In its Order denying the Motion it did authorize, the Board stated that Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments were directed “to the format of the data, address, and control
`
`signals, not their content,” and that “Patent Owner does not argue that the encoded
`
`data received by an FBDIMM AMB do not contain data, address, and control
`
`signals.” Paper 48, 3. But that is precisely what Patent Owner argued (see, e.g., POR
`
`11-12; Sur-Reply 8), and why it sought to submit Petitioner Micron’s corporate
`
`representatives’ testimony distinguishing between information contained in signals
`
`received by the AMB, on the one hand, and data, address, and control signals, on the
`
`other hand. The Board’s misapprehension of Patent Owner’s positions underscores
`
`the similar errors in the Final Written Decision and further supports reversal.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner Never Conceded that the FBDIMM AMB Receives
`Data, Address, or Control Signals in Any Form
`The Board stated that “Patent Owner agree[s] that FBDIMM AMB receives
`
`information that contains data, address, and control signals encoded in packetized,
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`serialized form at its edge connections.” FWD 55 (citing Sur-Reply 10). Patent
`
`Owner made no such concession. The cited portion of the Sur-Reply expressly states
`
`that these signals are “not exchanged at the interface between the FBDIMM and the
`
`host,” and that, consistent with the testimony of both parties’ experts, “information
`
`encoding data, address, and control—as opposed to the recited ‘data, address and
`
`control signals’—is received at the DIMM interface.” Sur-Reply 9-10.
`
`Patent Owner never suggested that this information includes the claimed
`
`signals, which it does not. As Patent Owner explained, even Petitioners’ own expert
`
`distinguished between information and signals generated using that information. Id.
`
`at 8; EX1003, ¶ 230 (stating that “the AMB buffers and converts the bi-directional
`
`communications with data, address, and control signal information into data,
`
`address, and control signals for the memory devices”). Patent Owner’s expert drew
`
`this same distinction. See EX2031, ¶ 31 (“[T]he AMB receives data, address and
`
`control information, decodes it and generates the data, address, and control signals
`
`needed by the DDR2 SDRAMs.”). “The claims, however, require specific ‘signals,’
`
`and not just ‘information,’ be coupled between the host and the memory module.”
`
`Sur-Reply 8 (citing EX1001, 1.b, 16.b, 23.b).
`
`E.
`
`The Board Effectively Absolved Petitioners of Their Obligations
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 required Petitioners to “specify where each element of the
`claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” The
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`contentions in the Petition “define the scope of the litigation all the way from
`
`institution through to conclusion.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1357
`
`(2018). Accordingly, it is of “the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR
`
`proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with
`
`particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). For that reason, a “petitioner
`
`may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented
`
`earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability,” Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide at 73, and petitioners may not introduce an “entirely new rationale,”
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1370, or rely “on previously unidentified
`
`portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention,” Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The Board’s decision to ignore that the Petition only pointed to signals
`
`generated on the module by the AMB presents an important policy issue: should the
`
`Board be allowed to alter Petitioners’ explicit characterizations of the grounds in the
`
`Petition. The Petition relies solely on signals generated by the AMB on the module.
`
`The Board’s decision rests on its finding that the “FBDIMM AMB receives
`
`information that contains data, address, and control signals encoded in packetized,
`
`serialized form at its edge connections.” FWD 55. However, there is no citation in
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`the Board’s decision to record evidence, only the Petition (which includes no such
`
`argument) and Patent Owner’s non-existent concession. See id. To be clear, this is
`
`not a case where the experts disagree and the Board adopts the view of one expert
`
`over another. Here, as explained above, both experts distinguished between
`
`information and signals generated using that information. See EX1003, ¶ 230;
`
`EX2031, ¶ 31. The record also includes competent evidence submitted by Dr.
`
`Mangione-Smith in support of his testimony that the data, address, and control
`
`signals are generated on-module by the AMB. EX2031, ¶ 31-34 (citing EX1028,
`
`p.29; EX2101, p.5; EX2039, p.2). The record, however, includes no testimony from
`
`Petitioners’ expert supporting a finding that encoded information received by the
`
`AMB is a “form” of the recited signals.
`
`Patent Owner recognizes that the Board believes in good faith that its finding
`
`is correct. But what it has in effect done is alter the Petition, which relied solely on
`
`signals generated by the AMD, which is on module. See, e.g., Brand v. Miller, 487
`
`F.3d 862, 869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “it is impermissible for the Board to
`
`base its factual findings on its expertise, rather than on evidence in the record”).
`
`The Board’s finding also contradicts Micron’s corporate representatives’
`
`testimony, which was before the Board in at least some form. See Paper 43 (attaching
`
`Mr. Holbrook’s relevant testimony); see also EX2072, 4 (stating that Mr. Cyr
`
`“testified that using address and control signals sent from the host system to the
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`memory module is a ‘different technology’ from using packetized information
`
`delivered from a host system to an AMB on a FBDIMM”). Yet the Board concluded
`
`that the contrary testimony is either “not relevant in this proceeding” or “not …
`
`helpful to resolving the issues presented.” Paper 48, 3; EX2072, 1.
`
`The lack of supporting evidence in the record, coupled with the lack of
`
`explanation or citation in the FWD, suggests that the Board relied on its own
`
`expertise to conclude that the encoded and packetized signals received by an
`
`FBDIMM are the claimed data, address, and control signals. See FWD 55-56. That
`
`is improper. See Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, 966 F.3d 1334, 1344 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (noting that while the Board is not “somehow obligated to defer to [one
`
`party’s expert’s] opinion,” the Board “cannot ‘simply reach conclusions based on
`
`its own understanding or experience—or on its assessment of what would be basic
`
`knowledge or common sense’” (quoting In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001)). This is not a situation in which the Board weighed the evidence and found
`
`some more persuasive than others. The record evidence does not support Petitioners’
`
`new reply argument, nor does the Board cite to any or explain its determination that
`
`“FBDIMM AMB receives information that contains data, address, and control
`
`signals encoded in packetized, serialized form at its edge connections.” FWD 55.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For all of these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests reversal.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`
`Dated: January 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Philip Warrick/
`
` H. Annita Zhong (Reg. No. 65,530)
` Jonathan M. Lindsay (Reg. No. 45,810)
` Jason Sheasby (pro hac vice)
` IRELL & MANELLA LLP
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite #900
` Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
` Telephone: (310) 203-7183
` Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`
`Philip Warrick (Reg. No. 54,707)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`750 17th Street NW, Ste. 850
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 777-6500
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Netlist, Inc.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00996
`Patent No. 11,016,918
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.6, that on January 5, 2024,
`
`a complete copy of the foregoing document was served by electronic mail, as
`
`agreed to by the parties, upon the following:
`
`
`Eliot D. Williams, Reg. No. 50,822
`Theodore W. Chandler, Reg. No. 50,319
`Ferenc Pazmandi, Reg. No. 66,216
`Brianna L. Potter, Reg. No. 76,748
`DLSamsungNetlistIPRs@BakerBotts.com
`
`Juan C. Yaquian
`Michael Rueckheim
`Winston-IPR-Netlist@winston.com
`
`
`/Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`