`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 24
`Date: May 2, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SK HYNIX INC., SK HYNIX AMERICA INC., and
`SK HYNIX MEMORY SOLUTIONS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NETLIST, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases
`IPR2017-00561 (Patent 8,001,434 B1)
`IPR2017-00562 (Patent 8,359,501 B1)
`IPR2017-00577 (Patent 8,516,185 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MATTHEW CLEMENTS, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in all three cases. We,
`therefore, exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00561 (Patent 8,001,434 B1)
`IPR2017-00562 (Patent 8,359,501 B1)
`IPR2017-00577 (Patent 8,516,185 B2)
`
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr.
`24, 2018). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one
`of the challenged claims of each of the challenged patents is unpatentable.
`IPR2017-00561, Paper 7; IPR2017-00562, Paper 7; IPR2017-00577, Paper
`8. We modify our institution decisions to institute on all of the challenged
`claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petition.
`The parties shall confer to discuss the impact, if any, of this Order. If,
`after conferring, the parties wish to submit briefing not set forth in the
`Scheduling Order, the parties must, within one week of the date of this
`Order, request a conference call with the panel to seek authorization for such
`briefing.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that each of our institution decisions is modified to
`include review of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the
`Petition; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine whether they desire any briefing, and, if so, request a
`conference call with the panel to seek authorization for such briefing within
`one week of the date of this Order.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00561 (Patent 8,001,434 B1)
`IPR2017-00562 (Patent 8,359,501 B1)
`IPR2017-00577 (Patent 8,516,185 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Joseph Micallef
`Steven Baik
`Wonjoo Suh
`Theodore Chandler
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`sbaik@sidley.com
`wsuh@sidley.com
`tchandler@sidley.com
`fpazmandi@sidley.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER in IPR2017-00561 and IPR2017-00562:
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Christopher C. Winslade
`Scott P. McBride
`Ronald H. Spuhler
`Wayne H. Bradley
`William Meunier
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`cwinslade@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`rspuhler@mcandrews-ip.com
`wbradley@mcandrews-ip.com
`wameunier@mintz.com
`For PATENT OWNER in IPR2017-00577:
`Mehran Arjomand
`Erol Basol
`William Meunier
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`marjomand@mofo.com
`ebasol@mofo.com
`wameunier@mintz.com
`
`3
`
`