`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00039
`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. IPR2017-00039
`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. IPR2017-00039
`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. IPR2017-00039
`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
`
`