`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00082
`Patent 6,088,802
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION (AS AUTHORIZED BY E-MAIL ON MAY 23, 2018)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IS RELEVANT TO
`WHETHER HARARI FIG. 4 TEACHES THE STRUCTURE OF
`THE “MEANS FOR MEDIATING” (INTERFACE CONTROL
`DEVICE 910) OF THE ’802 PATENT (37 C.F.R. § 42.123(A)(2)) ............1
`THE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST WAS TIMELY (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.123(A)(1)) ...................................................................................4
`III. GRANTING THIS MOTION WOULD NOT IMPACT THE
`EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THIS IPR.....................................4
`IV. GRANTING THIS MOTION WOULD NOT PREJUDICE PATENT
`OWNER; DENYING THE MOTION RISKS VIOLATING SAS
`INSTITUTE, DUE PROCESS, AND THE APA .......................................5
`V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`EmeraChem Holdings v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc.,
`859 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................. 5
`Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`825 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 4
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 5
`Pac. Mkt. Int’l, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC,
`IPR2014-00561, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014) ....................................... 5
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 5
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .............................................................................. 5
`Seabery N. Am. Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00840, Paper 60 at 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017) ................................ 4
`South-Tek Sys., LLC v. Eng’rd Corrosion Solutions, LLC,
`IPR2016-01351, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2017) ..................................... 4
`Statutes
`5 U.S.C. § 554(c) .......................................................................................... 5
`5 U.S.C. § 556(d) .......................................................................................... 5
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)(1) ................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)(2) ................................................................................ 1
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,707 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................... 5
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Document
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the ’802 Patent”)
`Summons Returned as Executed, SPEX Techs., Inc. v.
`Western Digital Corp., Case No. 8:16-cv-01799 (C.D. Cal.
`filed Oct. 31, 2016)
`File History of the ’802 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 5,887,145 to Harari et al. (“Harari”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,199,163 to Dumas et al. (“Dumas”)
`Don Anderson, PCMCIA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE: 16-
`BIT PC CARDS (MindShare, Inc., 2nd ed. 1995)
`(“PCMCIA Architecture”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,822,196 to Hastings et al. (“Hastings”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,922,060 to Goodrum (“Goodrum”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,965 to Moroz et al. (“Moroz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,943,482 to Culley et al. (“Culley”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,151 to Staples (“Staples”)
`Windows Developers Journal, Vol. 7, No. 8 (Aug. 1996)
`Claim Construction Briefing in SPEX Techs., Inc. v.
`Western Digital Corp., Case No. 16-cv-01799 (C.D. Cal.)
`(“SPEX Claim Construction Brief”)
`Tentative Order Regarding Claim Construction in SPEX
`Techs., Inc. v. Western Digital Corp., Case No. 16-cv-
`01799 (C.D. Cal.) (“Tentative Construction”)
`Declaration of Dr. Martin Kaliski, Ph.D. (“Kaliski Decl.”)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Exhibit A (Updated) to Defendants’ Reply Claim
`Construction Brief
`Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings in SPEX Techs, Inc. v.
`Kingston Tech. Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv-01790 (C.D.
`Cal.) (“Markman Hearing Transcript”)
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. (“Hall-Ellis Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,765,027 to Wang et al. (“Wang”)
`MARC Record
`Teleconference Transcript, IPR2018-00082, -00084 (Feb.
`8, 2018)
`Excerpts from the April 20, 2018 deposition of Dr. V.
`Thomas Rhyne
`Excerpts from the April 25, 2018 deposition of Mr. Miguel
`Gomez
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Martin Kaliski
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board’s institution decision stated that Harari (Ex. 1004) had not been
`
`shown to be structurally identical or equivalent to interface control device 910 in
`
`Figure 9B of the ’802 patent. Paper 11 at 15, 34-36. But, at that same moment,
`
`Patent Owner’s (PO) district court invalidity rebuttal experts—Dr. Rhyne and Mr.
`
`Gomez—confirmed in their depositions that the controllers in Harari Fig. 4 are
`
`structures corresponding to interface control device 910 in Fig. 9B of the ’802
`
`patent (Exs. 1022, 1023). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kaliski, explains in a
`
`supplemental declaration (Ex. 1024) that this testimony shows that Harari teaches
`
`the “means for mediating” limitation in claims 1-2, 11-12, and 23. This evidence
`
`(Exs. 1022-1024) should be allowed as supplemental information.
`
`I.
`
`THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IS RELEVANT TO
`WHETHER HARARI FIG. 4 TEACHES THE STRUCTURE OF THE
`“MEANS FOR MEDIATING” (INTERFACE CONTROL DEVICE
`910) OF THE ’802 PATENT (37 C.F.R. § 42.123(A)(2))
`Dr. Rhyne’s testimony, Mr. Gomez’s testimony, and the supplemental
`
`Kaliski declaration are relevant to whether Harari meets the “means for mediating”
`
`limitation. Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 2, 5. PO’s experts confirmed that Host Interface 54 of
`
`Harari Fig. 4 performs the same functions as the PCMCIA components in interface
`
`control device 910 from the ’802 patent. Ex. 1022 at 128:4-129:23; Ex. 1023 at
`
`263:16-265:10. Dr. Rhyne added that these components in interface control device
`
`910 are a “picture of what you are required to do … to build a PCMCIA standard
`
`interface” and how that interface is “typically implemented.” Ex. 1022 at 129:5-
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`15, 129:17-23. Mr. Gomez agreed that these general PCMCIA components were
`
`known to skilled artisans in 1997. Ex. 1023 at 263:16-265:10.
`
`Dr. Rhyne further testified that Memory Interface 56 of Harari Fig. 4 could
`
`be implemented using the Compact Flash interface structures in ’802 Patent Fig.
`
`9B and agreed that the inventors did not claim any particular novelty in the
`
`memory interface. Ex. 1022 at 129:24-130:15. Dr. Gomez testified that the same
`
`flash interface components in interface control device 910 are “generally . . .
`
`elements that are part of CompactFlash.” Ex. 1023 at 265:20-266:7.
`
`Third, both experts agreed that the PCMCIA and flash memory interfaces
`
`would have to be configured with registers to operate. Ex. 1022 at 130:16-18; Ex.
`
`1023 at 266:9-267:2.
`
`As Dr. Kaliski explains, this testimony shows that Harari teaches one of
`
`ordinary skill in art in 1997 the same structure as interface control device 910—
`
`which is the structure corresponding to the means for mediating limitation in the
`
`’802 Patent claims. Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 9, 15. Host Interface 54 structure in Harari Fig.
`
`4 corresponds to the PCMCIA I/O Controller, PCMCIA address buffer, PCMCIA
`
`data buffer, ready register, state controller, and command detector (red), and
`
`Memory Interface 56 in Harari Fig. 4 corresponds to the compact flash I/O control,
`
`compact flash data buffer, card enable decoder, and compact flash sector counter
`
`blocks (green). Id., ¶¶ 10-11. Depicted in red/green are the shared configuration
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`registers that PCMCIA and flash memory require to operate. Id., ¶ 12.
`
`
`Even if not identical, the structures are equivalent because they achieve
`
`substantially the same function (mediating communication of data between the
`
`host computing device and the target means) in substantially the same way (by
`
`using typical interface components for the PCMCIA and flash memory interfaces)
`
`for substantially the same result (so that the communicated data must first pass
`
`through the security means). Id., ¶ 13. (Dumas also teaches that the data must pass
`
`through the security means. Id., ¶ 13 n.2.) The differences between the structures,
`
`if any, are insubstantial (e.g., unified configuration registers). Id., ¶ 13.
`
`These components are known solutions for these interfaces and thus, as
`
`interchangeable, standard interfaces to PCMCIA and to flash memory, would have
`
`been obvious to skilled artisans to implement. Id., ¶ 14. A skilled artisan would
`
`have been motivated to use these standard components to increase the likelihood of
`
`a functional result, to result in a simpler, familiar design, and to avoid costs in
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`developing a brand new interface. Id. A skilled artisan would expect success
`
`because these are typical PCMCIA and flash memory interface components. Id.
`
`The supplemental information is thus highly relevant to whether Harari
`
`meets the “means for mediating” limitation in claims 1-2, 11-12, and 23.
`
`II. THE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST WAS TIMELY (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.123(A)(1))
`Petitioner timely sought authorization to file this Motion on May 22, 2018.
`
`III. GRANTING THIS MOTION WOULD NOT IMPACT THE
`EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THIS IPR
`The Board also considers “whether granting the Motion is consistent with
`
`the efficient administration of [the] proceeding and the ability of the Board to
`
`complete [the] proceedings in a timely manner.” South-Tek Sys., LLC v. Eng’rd
`
`Corrosion Solutions, LLC, IPR2016-01351, Paper 17 at 3 (P.T.A.B. June 15,
`
`2017). Exhibits 1022-1024 supplement (but do not change) the instituted grounds
`
`by building upon their teachings. This would further the very “purpose of the trial”
`
`by “giv[ing] the parties an opportunity to build a record by introducing evidence”
`
`and not simply “weigh[ing] evidence of which the Board is already aware.”
`
`Seabery N. Am. Inc. v. Lincoln Glob., Inc., IPR2016-00840, Paper 60 at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017); Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm.
`
`Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). At this stage, grant of the motion
`
`would not delay the Board’s reaching a final decision in a timely manner.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. GRANTING THIS MOTION WOULD NOT PREJUDICE PATENT
`OWNER; DENYING THE MOTION RISKS VIOLATING SAS
`INSTITUTE, DUE PROCESS, AND THE APA
`PO would not be prejudiced because there is “sufficient time to address any
`
`new information submitted by a petitioner” because the request was made within
`
`one month from institution. Pac. Mkt. Int’l, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00561, Paper 23 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014); 77 Fed. Reg. 48,707, cmt. 91 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). But if PO waives its response to try to close the record on issues that
`
`the Board believes were not reasonably likely to succeed, that would result in a de
`
`facto partial institution because the outcome would be preordained. This would
`
`render the Supreme Court’s mandate that “the Board [] address every claim the
`
`petition has challenged” a dead letter. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`
`1354, 1358 (2018). Without supplementation, estoppel could attach without an
`
`opportunity to respond. Due process and the APA require more: an opportunity to
`
`submit “facts,” “argument,” and “rebuttal evidence ... as may be required for a full
`
`and true disclosure of the facts.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 554(c), 556(d); EmeraChem Holdings
`
`v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); SAS Inst. Inc.
`
`v. ComplementSoft, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental evidence should be granted.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DATED: May 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian M. Buroker
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125) (lead)
`Blair A. Silver (Reg. No. 68,003) (back-up)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`bsilver@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Western Digital
`Corp.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) of a copy
`
`of this Motion to Submit Supplemental Evidence by electronic mail on May 29,
`
`2018 on the counsel of record of the Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos, plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant, afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III, vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`Enrique W. Iturralde, eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`DATED: May 29, 2018
`
`By: /s/ Brian M. Buroker
`
`
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Western Digital Corp..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
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
