Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 1 of 60
`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 1 of 60
`
`EXHIBIT 30
`EXHIBIT 30
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 2 of 60
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-00929
`Patent No. 7,080,330
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via PTAB E2E
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 3 of 60
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................... 3
`
`A. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`Standards For Showing Anticipation or Obviousness ..................... 5
`
`III. EACH OF THE SIX FINTIV I FACTORS WEIGHS STRONGLY IN
`FAVOR OF DENYING REVIEW UNDER SECTION 314 ................................ 8
`
`The Pending District Court Litigation Involving Petitioner and
`A.
`the ’330 Patent and the Nine Additional District Court Litigations Also
`Involving the ’330 Patent .............................................................................. 8
`
`B. Fintiv I Factor 1: No Stay Motion Is Pending in Any of the Ten
`District Court Actions and No Evidence Exists that One May Be
`Entered ..........................................................................................................10
`
`C. Fintiv I Factor 2: The Trial Dates in Eight Pending Litigations
`Are Either More Than Two Months Before, or In-Line with, the
`Board’s Projected Statutory Deadline For an FWD ................................14
`
`D. Fintiv I Factor 3: There Has Been Immense “Investment in the
`Parallel Proceedings by the Court and Parties” .......................................19
`
`E. Fintiv I Factor 4: There Is Complete “Overlap Between Issues
`Raised in the Petition and in the Parallel Proceedings” ..........................23
`
`1. Petitioner’s Proffered Stipulation to Not Pursue Invalidity on
`the Same Grounds Has No Effect Because It Does Not Cover Any
`Ground Raised or that Could Have Been Raised ...........................24
`
`2. Petitioner’s Proffered Stipulation Has No Effect Because
`Petitioner Does Not Stipulate to Not Asserting The Same Prior
`Art References in Different Combinations .....................................25
`
`3. None of Petitioner’s Co-Defendants Have Committed to Not
`Asserting the Same Prior Art Reference Grounds in Parallel
`District Court Proceedings ...............................................................26
`
`F. Fintiv I Factor 5: The Petitioner and the Defendant in the Parallel
`Proceeding Are the Same Party .................................................................27
`
`G. Fintiv I Factor 6: Other Circumstances Further Favor Non-
`Institution .....................................................................................................28
`
`1. The Petition’s Grounds Are Weak ............................................29
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 4 of 60
`
`2. Petitioner Has Not Challenged Other Asserted Patents So that
`Resolving this IPR Will Not Resolve Any of the Ten District Court
`Proceedings ........................................................................................30
`
`Balancing the Six Fintiv I Factors Weighs Heavily in Favor of
`H.
`Denying the Petition on a Discretionary Basis ..........................................31
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................32
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘330 PATENT .......................................................32
`
`VI. GROUND 1 IS MERITLESS BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS FAILED
`TO SHOW THAT ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`ARE PRESENT IN A SINGLE EMBODIMENT OF LEVY ............................33
`
`A.
`
`The Levy Disclosure and Its Limitations ........................................33
`
`Petitioner’s Flawed Anticipation Argument Allegedly Based on
`B.
`Levy .............................................................................................................36
`
`VII. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A PROPER MOTIVATION
`TO COMBINE SPECIFIC ONES OF THE HUNDREDS OF
`EMBODIMENTS OF LEVY IN SUCH A WAY AS TO TEACH THE
`INVENTIONS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..........................................38
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Sufficient Evidence of Motivation ......38
`
`Levy Fails to Provide Sufficient Teaching of How to Use Its
`B.
`Disclosed Tools in a Manner to Reach the Methods of the Challenged
`Claims of the ’330 Patent ............................................................................40
`
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A PROPER
`VIII.
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF WONG AND
`BROWN IN SUCH A WAY AS TO REACH THE INVENTIONS OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................................................................................42
`
`IX. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A PROPER MOTIVATION
`TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS OF ADEL AND BROWN IN SUCH A
`WAY AS TO REACH THE INVENTIONS OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ..................................................................................................................45
`
`X. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 5 of 60
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (PTAB July 13, 2015) .......................................... passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ................................... passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020) .......................... 5, 15, 17, 27
`
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00203, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2020) ........................................ 19, 25
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ., Ltd.,
`IPR 2020-00122, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020) ..........................................22
`
`Code200, UAB v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021) .............................................27
`
`Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC et al.,
`No. 7-18-cv-00147 (W.D. Tex. July. 22, 2020) (text order) ................................12
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)............................................................................................ 4
`
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2019) ...........................................15
`
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00162, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. June 5, 2019) .............................................15
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) .............................................. 4
`
`Google LLC v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC,
`IPR2020- 00720, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020) .........................................25
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 6
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 6 of 60
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................8, 42
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig. v. Apotex Corp.,
`536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 7
`
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................7, 40
`
`In re Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`830 F. App’x 318 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................12
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 7, 44, 47
`
`Kerr Machine Co. d/b/a Kerr Pumps v. Vulcan Industrial Holdings, LLC,
`No. 6-20-cv-00200-ADA, (W. D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2020) (text order) ......................11
`
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`Case No. 6:20-CV-00200-ADA, Dkt. No. 76 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) ..... 11, 12
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc.,
`IPR2014-01457, Paper 59 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016) .......................................6, 37
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc.,
`878 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................5, 37
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00008, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2020) ...........................................15
`
`Netlist v. SK Hynik Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00194-ADA,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47242 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021) ....................................18
`
`Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00961, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ............................................15
`
`Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00962, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ............................................16
`
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018- 00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) ................................ 4, 23, 31
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 7 of 60
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................7, 42
`
`P&G v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Clear Imaging Research, LLC,
`IPR2020-01402, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2021) .............................................24
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2021) ..............................................16
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group,
`IPR2019-0139, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) .............................................18
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)............................................................................................ 3
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ...................................... 24, 31
`
`Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Zircon Corp.,
`IPR2021-01701, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021) ...........................................16
`
`Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA,
`No. 2:13-cv-1047-WCB,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29572 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) ...................................11
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 6, 40, 44
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. Martin Kuster,
`IPR2020-01410, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2021) ...........................................27
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 8 of 60
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS RELIED ON
`
`Description
`Docket No. 34 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. No. 6:20-cv-1216-ADA
`(W.D. Tex)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1215-ADA (W.D. Tex)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`Silicon Labs. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01214 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`Renesas Elecs. Corp., et al., No. 6:20-cv-01213 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP
`Semiconductors NV, et al., No. 6:20-cv-01212 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`NVIDIA Corp., No. 6:20-cv-01211 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 32 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 32 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 6:20-cv-01211 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 34 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. NXP Semiconductors NV, et al., No. 6:20-cv-01212 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`Docket No. 43 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., et al., No. 6:20-cv-01213 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`Docket No. 31 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. Silicon Labs. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01214 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 34 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1215-ADA (W.D.
`Tex)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`Huawei Device USA Inc., et al., No. 4:20-cv-00991 (E.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 22 Scheduling Order entered in Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al., No. 4:20-cv-00991 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 9 of 60
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`Infineon Techs. AG, et al., No. 1:20-cv-12311 (D. Mass.)
`Docket No. 1 Complaint filed in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`Analog Devices, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-12310 (D. Mass.)
`Ryan Davis, How Texas Judges Have Kept IP Trials Moving
`During COVID, LAW360, Apr. 6, 2021, https://www.law360.com/
`articles/1372773/how-texas-judges-have-kept-ip-trials-
`movingduring-covid
`Judge Alan D Albright’s ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS
`– PATENT CASE, June 24, 2021
`ECFs reflecting completion of briefing for Motions to Dismiss
`ECF reflecting July 15, 2021, decision by Judge Albright on
`Motions to Consolidate
`ECF reflecting completion of briefing for Motion to Transfer
`Venue filed by Renesas Electronics Corp. and Renesas Electronics
`America
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC’s Notice Letter to Western Digital
`Corporation dated November 24, 2020
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions cover pleading in Ocean
`Semiconductor LLC v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. No.
`6:20-cv-1216-ADA (W.D. Tex)
`Docket No. 29 Renesas’s Response to Ocean Semiconductor’s
`Motion for Pre-trial Consolidation of Co-pending Related Cases in
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., et al., No.
`6:20-cv-01213 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 28 STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s Opposition to Ocean
`Semiconductor’s Motion for Pre-trial Consolidation in Ocean
`Semiconductor LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1215-
`ADA (W.D. Tex)
`Docket No. 25 Silicon Laboratories Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
`Motion for Pre-trial Consolidation in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`Silicon Labs. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01214 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket No. 25 MediaTek Inc.’s and MediaTek USA Inc.’s
`Opposition to Motion for Consolidation of Co-pending Related
`Cases in Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No.
`6:20-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 10 of 60
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`Docket No. 28 NXP Semiconductors NV’s Opposition to Motion
`for Consolidation of Co-pending Related Cases in Ocean
`Semiconductor LLC v. NXP Semiconductors NV, et al., No. 6:20-
`cv-01212 (W.D. Tex.)
`J. A. Dagata et al., Metrology Development for the Nanoelectronics
`Industry at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, 3
`NSTI-Nanotech 354 (2004)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 11 of 60
`
`Through the undersigned Counsel, Patent Owner Ocean Semiconductor LLC
`
`(“Ocean” or “Patent Owner”) submits the following Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (a). See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (b).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (“WDT” of “Petitioner”) filed
`
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,330 (“the ’330 Patent”)
`
`on May 18, 2021. (IPR2021-00929, Paper No. 1 (“Petition”).) The Petition should
`
`be denied for several reasons.
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny
`
`the Petition for multiple reasons. First, because—no matter how the challenged
`
`claims are ultimately decided in this forum (i.e., whether or not trial is instituted
`
`and whether or not any challenged claims are found to be invalid)—there are three
`
`district courts—in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) , the Western District of
`
`Texas (“WDTX”), and the District of Massachusetts (“DMASS”)—overseeing a
`
`total of ten district court actions that will have addressed, or will be in the midst of
`
`addressing, the validity of each of the challenged claims of the ’330 Patent by the
`
`projected November 26, 2022, deadline for a Final Written Decision (“FWD”).
`
`Second, most of the defendants in six other parallel district court actions
`
`pending in the WDTX where the ’330 Patent is also asserted have explicitly
`
`represented to the court that they are not bound by Petitioner’s stipulation to not
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 12 of 60
`
`pursue the same prior art references and grounds in the district court litigations.
`
`The defendants in the three additional actions in the EDTX and DMASS have
`
`never agreed to be bound. Thus, those prior art references will surely be re-
`
`litigated by one or more of those defendants in the co-pending actions.
`
`Third, the EDTX proceeding (pending before Judge Mazzant, III) where the
`
`’330 Patent is being asserted against an additional third-party defendant has its
`
`Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for August 15, 2022—more than three months
`
`before the Board’s statutory FWD deadline of November 20, 2022, and typically
`
`starts trial three weeks later—still more than two and a half months before the
`
`FWD deadline. In the similar vein, the seven related WDTX proceedings (all
`
`pending before Judge Albright), which include the one in which the Petitioner is a
`
`named defendant, have trial scheduled to take place at around the same time as the
`
`deadline for the FWD, with the Final Pretrial Conference to take place on
`
`November 16, 2022—ten days before the FWD deadline—and trial on December
`
`7, 2022—just eleven days after the FWD deadline.
`
`Thus, the possibility of duplication of efforts here is very high, as is the
`
`potential for inconsistent results, should the Board decide to become the fourth
`
`tribunal across eleven different proceedings considering the overlapping issues.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 13 of 60
`
`Fourth, beyond the many reasons supporting discretionary denial, Petitioner
`
`failed to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner’s Ground 1—alleged anticipation by the Levy
`
`reference—fails inter alia because it improperly relies on teachings from multiple
`
`distinct embodiments to cobble together the various elements of the challenged
`
`claims. The rest of Petitioner’s grounds (Grounds 2-4) all allege obviousness over
`
`various combinations of alleged art, but Petitioner fails to present the needed
`
`evidence of a motivation or teaching that would have led a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”) in 2003 to combine the prior art in the manner Petitioner
`
`presents. Thus, these grounds fail as well.
`
`For each of these reasons, and as further discussed below, the Petition
`
`should be denied.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`The AIA’s 35 U.S.C. §314(a) “invests the Director with discretion on the
`
`question [of] whether to institute review.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`
`1348, 1356 (2018) (emphasis in original). The Board is “permitted, but never
`
`compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815
`
`F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 14 of 60
`
`S. Ct. 2131 (2016). In exercising its discretion, the Board considers the merits of a
`
`petition, not in isolation, but in view of surrounding circumstances relevant to the
`
`“potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes review process and the
`
`fundamental fairness of the process for all parties.” General Plastic Indus. Co. v.
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 18 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)
`
`(Precedential).
`
`Denial may be warranted in view of “events in other proceedings related to
`
`the same patent, either at the Office, in district courts, or the ITC,” regardless of
`
`whether the minimum standards for institution are met. Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide (“TPG”), at 58 (citing NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs.,
`
`Inc., IPR2018- 00752, Paper 8 at 11–21 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)) (Precedential).1
`
`In balancing whether to exercise its § 314(a) discretion to deny institution,
`
`the Board considers six factors articulated in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (Precedential) (“Fintiv I”):
`
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`
`1 All emphasis in this Preliminary Response is added unless noted otherwise.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 15 of 60
`
`
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`
`
`6.
`
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.
`
`In examining these factors, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency
`
`and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.”
`
`Apple v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 8 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020)
`
`(“Fintiv II”); see TPG at 58 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)).
`
`B.
`
`Standards For Showing Anticipation or Obviousness
`
`To establish anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must identify each and
`
`every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art
`
`reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must expressly or
`
`inherently disclose each claim limitation. . . . But disclosure of each element is not
`
`quite enough—this court has long held that anticipation requires the presence in a
`
`single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the
`
`claim”) (emphasis original; internal citation and punctuation omitted). In other
`
`words, anticipation is not proven merely by combining the teachings of multiple
`
`distinct embodiments in a prior art reference. Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878
`
`F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“anticipation is not proven by ‘multiple, distinct
`
`teachings [within a single reference] that the artisan might somehow combine to
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 16 of 60
`
`achieve the claimed invention’”; quoting with approval Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti
`
`Inc., IPR2014-01457, Paper 59 at 29-30 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016).)
`
`To make a prima facie showing of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
`
`Petition must, among other requirements, fulfill the requirements set forth in
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), including demonstrating that the
`
`cited references disclose each element of a challenged claim. In re Magnum Oil
`
`Tools Int’l., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Apple Inc. v.
`
`Contentguard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 at 12-13 (PTAB July 13,
`
`2015).
`
`Petitioner also has the burden to show there would have been some
`
`motivation to combine the asserted prior art, and that the proposed combination
`
`would render the patented claims obvious. “Obviousness requires more than a
`
`mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate
`
`limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655
`
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted); see also In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., 829 F.3d at 1376. Even if individual modifications or
`
`choices were obvious, a petition must explain why making all of the changes at
`
`once would be obvious. Apple Inc. v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 16-17 (“[T]he
`
`mere fact that individual changes might have been obvious does not make doing all
`
`of the changes at once obvious”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 17 of 60
`
`The Federal Circuit has found that, even for an obviousness challenge based
`
`on a single reference in view of the knowledge and skill of a POSITA, there must
`
`be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a
`
`combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at
`
`the claimed combination. In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). In other words, when a gap in a single prior art reference requires filling
`
`with, for example, the knowledge of one of a POSITA, there must be a further
`
`showing that the POSITA would have arrived at the claimed invention.
`
`The lack of a technological obstacle to combining references, in and of
`
`itself, does not justify a finding of obviousness. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.
`
`v. Apotex Corp., 536 F.3d 1361, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reason for combining
`
`disparate prior art references is critical and should be made explicit. InTouch
`
`Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal
`
`citation omitted).
`
`Hindsight analysis is inappropriate; obviousness must be measured “at the
`
`time the invention was made.” Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs, 520 F.3d
`
`1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis original). A petition must demonstrate a
`
`rationale to combine prior art references without relying on the patent disclosure
`
`itself. Apple Inc. v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 15, 17; see also P&G v. Teva
`
`Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Petitioner must not
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 18 of 60
`
`use the patent as a roadmap. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(internal citation omitted); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`421 (2007).
`
`III. EACH OF THE SIX FINTIV I FACTORS WEIGHS STRONGLY IN
`FAVOR OF DENYING REVIEW UNDER SECTION 314
`
`A weighing of the six Fintiv I factors demonstrates that efficiency and the
`
`integrity of the AIA are best served by denying institution. Indeed, each factor
`
`favors denying institution of review.
`
`A. The Pending District Court Litigation Involving Petitioner and
`the ’330 Patent and the Nine Additional District Court Litigations
`Also Involving the ’330 Patent
`
`The ’330 Patent (as well as six other patents) has been asserted by Patent
`
`Owner against Petitioner in the WDTX: Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Western
`
`Digital Technologies, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01216 (W.D. Tex.). (Ex. 1013 at ¶¶93-
`
`112.) A Claim Construction Hearing is set for December 8, 2021, and trial is
`
`scheduled to begin December 7, 2022. (Ex. 2001.)
`
`The ’330 Patent has also been asserted against unrelated defendants in six
`
`other district court actions pending in the WDTX—Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`
`STMicroelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01215 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 81-101);
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Labs. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01214 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 71-90); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., et al.,
`
`No. 6:20-cv-01213 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 71-91); Ocean Semiconductor LLC
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 19 of 60
`
`v. NXP Semiconductors NV, et al., No. 6:20-cv-01212 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2005 at ¶¶
`
`80-99); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 6:20-cv-01211 (W.D.
`
`Tex.) (Ex. 2006 at ¶¶ 81-100); and Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et
`
`al., No. 6:20-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 2007 at ¶¶ 70-89). The schedule for the
`
`Claim Construction Hearing and trials in each of those six additional matters is
`
`identical to the action involving Petitioner—the Markman Hearing set for
`
`December 8, 2021, and trial set to begin December 7, 2022. (Exs. 2008-2013.)
`
`In addition, the ’330 Patent is asserted in an eighth district court action
`
`pending in the EDTX— Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et
`
`al., No. 4:20-cv-00991 (E.D. Tex.). (Ex. 2014 at ¶¶ 70-89.) The Claim
`
`Construction Hearing in that action is set for January 5, 2022, and the Final Pretrial
`
`Conference is scheduled for August 15, 2022. (Ex. 2015.)
`
`Finally, the ’330 Patent has still further been asserted against additional
`
`defendants in ninth and tenth district court actions that are pending in the
`
`DMASS—Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Infineon Techs. AG, et al., No. 1:20-cv-
`
`12311 (D. Mass.) (Ex. 2016 at ¶¶ 82-102); and Ocean Semiconductor LLC v.
`
`Analog Devices, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-12310 (D. Mass.) (Ex. 2017 at ¶¶ 72-92).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-30 Filed 10/06/21 Page 20 of 60
`
`B.
`
`Fintiv I Factor 1: No Stay Motion Is Pending in Any of the Ten
`District Court Actions and No Evidence Exists that One May Be
`Entered
`
`Fintiv I Factor 1—whether the district court has granted a stay or evidence
`
`exists that one may be granted if an IPR proceeding is instituted—favors denial
`
`because Petitioner has not filed any motion to stay the district court proceeding in
`
`view of the instant Petition, nor have any of the defendants in any of the nine other
`
`pending district court actions where the ’330 Patent is asserted. While a district
`
`court determines whether to grant a stay based on the facts of each case, there is no
`
`evidence here to suggest that any of the three district courts in any of the ten
`
`pending district court proceedings would grant such a stay, much less that all three
`
`district courts would issue stays across all ten actions. In fact, a stay of Petitioner’s
`
`district court action is extremely unlikely and the likelihood that that action and the
`
`nine other actions covering all of the pending litigation involving the ’330 Patent
`
`would all be stayed is virtually non-existent.
`
`Petitioner states that it “intends to move for a stay of the district-court case if
`
`the Board institutes this IPR proceeding.” (Pet. at 5.) Setting aside that
`
`Petitioner’s intent (as opposed to a filed motion itself) has no weight in the F