`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00038
`Patent 6,195,302
`
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,195,302
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00038
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`
`
`Patent Owner ProMOS Technologies, Inc. hereby submits this brief
`
`reservation of rights.
`
`The Federal Circuit has held IPRs are constitutional. MCM Portfolio LLC v.
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1288-92 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137
`
`S. Ct. 292. However, on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari
`
`in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, No. 16-712, 2017
`
`WL 2507340 (U.S. June 12, 2017), to consider the following question: “1.
`
`Whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents – violates the
`
`Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article II
`
`forum without a jury.” In the event that the Supreme Court concludes that inter
`
`partes review proceedings are unconstitutional, Patent Owner reserves its right to
`
`argue that this ruling is applicable in the present inter partes review, and that the
`
`inter partes review should be dismissed as unconstitutional.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Craig R. Kaufman
`
`Registration No. 34,636
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`TechKnowledge Law Group LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`650-517-5200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00038
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`
`
`Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1996
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-ProMOS1-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Arvind Jairam (Reg. No. 62,759)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1887
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-ProMOS1-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 10, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,195,302 and all supporting exhibits were served electronically via email to
`the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as follows:
`
`
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1990
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-ProMOS1-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Chetan R. Bansal
`(Limited Recognition No. L0667)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1948
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-ProMOS1-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Deborah L. Grover
`
`Deborah L. Grover
`
`TechKnowledge Law Group LLP
`
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`650-517-5200
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00038
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
`TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION REQUIREMENTS
`
`The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that:
`
`This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Code of Federal
`
`Regulations 42.24(d). The brief contains 157 words, excluding the parts of the
`
`brief exempted by Code of Federal Regulations 42.24(b).
`
`/s/ Craig R. Kaufman
`Registration No. 34,636
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
