`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ____
`Filed: August 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00038
`U.S. Patent No. 6,195,302
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00038
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`
`
`Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) submits
`
`the
`
`following reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper No. 10, “Response”).
`
`The Board instituted trial in this proceeding on claims 1-6 and 10-12 finding
`
`that the Petition (Paper No. 1) and the accompanying evidence demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that each of claims
`
`1-6 and 10-12 are unpatentable. (See generally, Paper No. 6, “Decision.”) In its
`
`Response, Patent Owner does not submit any arguments contesting the merits of
`
`the Decision or the evidence set forth by Petitioner. Instead, the Response merely
`
`states that Patent Owner reserves its rights to request dismissal of this proceeding
`
`in the event that the Supreme Court concludes that inter partes review proceedings
`
`are unconstitutional. Indeed, in doing so, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[t]he
`
`Federal Circuit has held IPRs are constitutional.” (Response at 1, citing MCM
`
`Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1288-92 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
`
`Because the evidence submitted by Petitioner explained how claims 1-6 and
`
`10-12 are either anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art, and Patent Owner
`
`does not contest Petitioner’s evidence on the merits, Petitioner respectfully submits
`
`that Petitioner has established by at least a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`claims 1-6 and 10-12 are unpatentable. The Board should, therefore, issue a final
`
`written decision canceling these claims.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Dated: August 3, 2017
`
`IPR2017-00038
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00038
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1), the undersigned certifies that the
`
`foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response contains, as measured by
`
`the word-processing system used to prepare this paper, 222 words. This word
`
`count does not include the items excluded by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 as not counting
`
`towards the word limit.
`
`Dated: August 3, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00038
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 3, 2017, a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Reply was served by electronic means upon Counsel for Patent Owner at the
`
`following address of record:
`
`Craig Kaufman (Promos.Samsung-TKLGALL@tklg-llp.com)
`Kevin Jones (Promos.Samsung-TKLGALL@tklg-llp.com)
`TechKnowledge Law Group LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 3, 2017
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
