`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 6,195,302
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00039
`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, 10-12, and 14-18
`
`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, 10-12, and 14-18 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, 10-
`
`12, and 14-18 are 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, 10-12, and 14-18 are unpatentable. The Board should, therefore, issue a final
`
`written decision canceling these claims.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Dated: August 3, 2017
`
`IPR2017-00039
`Patent No. 6,195,302
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00039
`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, 223 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00039
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`