`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`
`
`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,†
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NETLIST, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2022-00996
`Patent 11,016,918 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`† 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Patent Owner’s hyperlink to PC Magazine is improper ....................... 1
`B.
`Patent Owner’s hyperlinks to images are improper, as are the
`images themselves ................................................................................. 3
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Applied Materials v. Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`IPR2021-01340, Paper 52 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2022) ................................................... 3
`Intel Corp. v. Parkervision, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01265, Paper 44 (PTAB Jan. 21, 2022) .................................................. 2
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .............................................................. 3
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ......................................................................................... 1, 3, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a) ...................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 5
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s opposition does not dispute that the URL-supported
`
`materials in its Sur-Reply violate 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.63(a) and 42.23(b), which Patent
`
`Owner does not even bother to cite. Instead, Patent Owner inappropriately
`
`reiterates its claim construction arguments on the merits, under the premise of
`
`arguing that the URL-supported materials are relevant. Paper 34 (“Opp’n”) at 1–4.
`
`But alleged relevance does not excuse Patent Owner from following the proper
`
`rules for submitting evidence in this proceeding. And the fact that Patent Owner is
`
`so desperate to inject random extrinsic evidence into the record at this late date
`
`merely highlights the weakness of Patent Owner’s claim construction positions.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Patent Owner’s hyperlink to PC Magazine is improper
`Patent Owner’s arguments about the PC Magazine webpage focus on the
`
`alleged relevance of that extrinsic evidence to Patent Owner’s claim construction
`
`arguments. Opp’n at 1–3. But relevance has nothing to do with this Motion: this
`
`Motion is about Patent Owner failing to follow well-established rules for
`
`submitting evidence in an IPR. If Patent Owner genuinely needed to present new
`
`evidence “to clarify a potential term of confusion that Netlist could not foresee as it
`
`first arose in the Reply,” id. at 3, then Patent Owner should have sought permission
`
`to submit new evidence as exhibits. Having failed to do so, Patent Owner cannot
`
`now complain that its belated evidence is necessary to its arguments. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. v. Parkervision, Inc., IPR2020-01265, Paper 44, at 74–75 (PTAB Jan.
`
`21, 2022) (excluding evidence submitted with sur-reply).
`
`To the extent the Board considers relevancy in resolving this Motion,
`
`Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s assertion of relevancy. The cited
`
`statement from PC Magazine is irrelevant to the construction of “memory
`
`module,” which is the actual claim term at issue. The phrase “main memory
`
`module” does not appear in the specification or the claims—it comes only from
`
`Patent Owner’s incorrect attempts to narrow the claims. As previously explained
`
`by Petitioner, neither the District Court’s construction nor Dr. Wolfe’s prior
`
`testimony limit a “memory module” to a “main memory module.” See Paper 25
`
`(Reply) at 1–2. Patent Owner’s citation to PC Magazine is a textbook example of
`
`why the Federal Circuit has held that such extrinsic evidence is unreliable:
`
`“[T]here is a virtually unbounded universe of potential extrinsic evidence of some
`
`marginal relevance that could be brought to bear on any claim construction
`
`question. In the course of litigation, each party will naturally choose the pieces of
`
`extrinsic evidence most favorable to its cause, leaving the court with the
`
`considerable task of filtering the useful extrinsic evidence from the fluff. . . .
`
`[U]ndue reliance on extrinsic evidence poses the risk that it will be used to change
`
`the meaning of claims in derogation of the ‘indisputable public records consisting
`
`of the claims, the specification and the prosecution history,’ thereby undermining
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`the public notice function of patents.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1318–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes Applied Materials by arguing that “the ruling
`
`is in connection with a motion to strike a new argument.” Opp’n at 3. To the
`
`contrary, the Board’s decision in Applied Materials was to “grant Petitioner’s
`
`motion to exclude the URL…[and] not strike the argument that the URL is cited as
`
`supporting.” Applied Materials v. Ocean Semiconductor LLC, IPR2021-01340,
`
`Paper 52, at 62 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2022) (emphasis added). There was no need to
`
`move to strike the argument in Applied Materials because “absent citation to the
`
`stricken URL, such argument lacks evidentiary support.” Id. The same is true
`
`here.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s hyperlinks to images are improper, as are the
`images themselves
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion that “Petitioners do not seem to
`
`object to the images themselves,” Opp’n at 5, this Motion is not limited to the
`
`literal URLs and also seeks to exclude the “materials referenced with [the] URLs,”
`
`Paper 33 at 1. The images related to the URLs are specifically identified and
`
`reprinted in the first two pages of Petitioner’s Motion. Id. at 1–2. Those images
`
`(as well as the underlying URLs) cannot be considered as evidence in this
`
`proceeding because they do not comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.63(a) and 42.23(b).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that the new images should be considered because their
`
`“purpose” is similar to that of a “demonstrative.” Opp’n at 5. But unlike a
`
`demonstrative, these new images have no basis in properly submitted evidence.
`
`Rather, Patent Owner is trying to use the URL-cited images as new, untimely
`
`support for new positions. That is not the same “purpose” as a demonstrative
`
`illustration. In particular, Patent Owner is trying to use random images off the
`
`Internet to try to contradict the actual disclosure of Spiers, which discloses memory
`
`devices (yellow) on a module, resulting in a “memory module”:
`
`
`
`Pet. at 95.
`
`Furthermore, as a legal matter, Patent Owner cites no authority to support its
`
`position that the “purpose” of the evidence creates an exception to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.63(a) or 42.23(b). In fact, this position directly contradicts the language of
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a), which says that “[a]ll evidence must be filed in the form of
`
`an exhibit.” Id. (emphasis added). Evidence, according to this same section,
`
`“consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things.” Id.
`
`There is no distinction made for evidence serving different purposes. No matter
`
`what “purpose” Patent Owner may have had in mind for the images and URLs,
`
`they are still untimely and not in compliance with the rules.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`exclude the evidence described above.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 30, 2023
`
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams, Reg. #50,822
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`T: (650) 739-7511
`F: (650) 739-7611
`
`Theodore W. Chandler
`Reg. No. 50,319
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1801 Century Park East
`Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`T: (213) 202-5702
`F: (213) 202-5732
`
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`Reg. No. 66,216
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street
`Suite 3200
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`T: (415) 291-6255
`F: (415) 291-6355
`
`Brianna L. Potter
`Reg. No. 76,748
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`T: (650) 739-7556
`F: (650) 739-7656
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 30th day of August,
`
`2023, Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Evidence was served by email on the following counsel for Patent Owner and
`
`Micron:
`
`Hong Annita Zhong (Reg. No. 66,530)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Phone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`Email: hzhong@irell.com
`
` NetlistIPR@irell.com
`Juan C. Yaquian (Reg. No. 70,755)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capital Street, Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002-2925
`Tel. (713) 651-2600
`Fax. (713) 651-2700
`Email: JYaquian@winston.com;
`Winston-IPR-Netlist@winston.com
`
`Dated: August 30, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Jason Sheasby (not admitted)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Phone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`Email: jsheasby@irell.com
`
`Michael R. Rueckheim (not admitted)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 520
`Redwood City, California 94065
`Phone: (650) 858-6500
`Fax: (650) 858-6550
`Email: mrueckheim@winston.com;
`Winston-IPR-Netlist@winston.com
`
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams, Reg. #50,822
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`T: (650) 739-7511
`F: (650) 739-7611
`Counsel for Petitioner Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`7
`
`