IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`§
`
`VERVAIN, LLC,
`§
`
`
`§
`Plaintiff,
`
`§
`
`v.
`§
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON §
`SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., and §
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC,
`§
`
`
`§
`
`Defendants.
`§
`
`C.A. No. 6:20-cv-00178-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`MICRON’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS FOR
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,891,298; 9,196,385; 9,997,240; AND 10,950,300
`
`Pursuant to the Agreed Scheduling Order (D.E. 26), Defendants Micron Technology,
`
`Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (together,
`
`“Micron”) hereby serve the following Preliminary Invalidity Contentions for the asserted claims
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,891,298 (the “298 Patent”), 9,196,385 (the “385 Patent”), 9,997,240 (the
`
`“240 Patent”), and 10,950,300 (the “300 Patent”) (collectively, “asserted patents”).
`
`Plaintiff Vervain, LLC (“Vervain”) has asserted the following 26 claims of the asserted
`
`patents, which are collectively called the “asserted claims”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`298 Patent claims 1, 3-5, 11;
`
`385 Patent Claim 1, 3-5, 11-13;
`
`240 Patent claims 1-2, 6-7; and
`
`300 Patent claims 1-5, 7-12.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In accordance with the Agreed Scheduling Order (D.E. 24) and with paragraph 6 of the
`
`Order Governing Proceedings-Patent Case, Micron hereby provide: (1) charts setting forth where
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 1
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`in the prior art references each element of the asserted claims are found, (2) an identification of
`
`any limitations Micron contends are indefinite or lack written description under section 112, and
`
`(3) an identification of any claims Micron contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under
`
`section 101. In addition, based on its investigation to date, Micron hereby produces the prior art
`
`references on which these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are based and technical documents
`
`sufficient to show the operation of the accused products. Subject to the issuance of a Protective
`
`Order the parties are negotiating regarding source code, Micron further makes available for
`
`inspection source code that, alone or in combination with the technical documents referenced
`
`above, is sufficient to show the operation of the accused products.
`
`Micron also incorporates by reference Patent Trial and Appeal Board Case Nos.
`
`IPR2021-01547, IPR2021-01548, and IPR2021-01550, including the petitions, supporting
`
`declarations, and exhibits, into these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.1
`
`Micron has not completed its investigation of the facts and documents relating to this
`
`action and has not completed its preparation for trial. Micron has not taken any depositions in
`
`this action, including, without limitation, any depositions of the named inventor of the asserted
`
`patents and/or other persons having potentially relevant information. As discovery in this action
`
`provides Micron with additional information, it is possible that Micron will discover additional
`
`prior art pertinent to the invalidity of the asserted claims of the asserted patents, and Micron
`
`reserves the right to supplement these contentions after becoming aware of additional prior art or
`
`information. See D.E. 24 (deadline to serve Final Invalidity Contentions is March 11, 2022). In
`
`
`1 Upon the filing of the IPR petitions IPR2021-01547, IPR2021-01548, and IPR2021-01550,
`Micron has stipulated in each that “it will not pursue any instituted grounds as invalidity
`defenses in the District Court” should the PTAB grant institution. As of this date, the PTAB has
`not rendered any institution decision.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 2
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`particular, Micron reserves the right to rely on any invalidity position and any prior art reference
`
`included in the invalidity contentions of any defendant in a case brought by Plaintiff alleging any
`
`of the asserted patents, or any patents in the same family. Micron further reserves the right to
`
`introduce and use such supplemental materials at trial.
`
`II.
`
`RESERVATIONS
`
`This document, and the information and documents that Micron produces in connection
`
`with these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, are provisional and subject to further revision. In
`
`addition to these contentions being “Preliminary” (see D.E. 24), Micron expressly reserves the
`
`right to amend, supplement, or modify these contentions should Plaintiff amend, supplement, or
`
`modify its Infringement Contentions, provide any new or additional information or documents
`
`that relate to its Infringement Contentions, or seek to modify or amend the accused products at
`
`issue in this case or the theories on which it is alleging infringement. Further, because Micron
`
`has not yet completed its search for and analysis of relevant prior art, Micron reserves the right to
`
`revise, amend, and/or supplement the information provided herein, including identifying and
`
`relying on additional prior art patents, publications, products, systems, or uses, should Micron’s
`
`further search and analysis yield additional information. Moreover, Micron reserves the right to
`
`revise its contentions concerning the invalidity of the asserted claims depending upon the Court’s
`
`construction of the asserted claims, any findings as to the priority date of the asserted claims,
`
`and/or positions that Plaintiff or its expert witness(es) may take concerning claim construction,
`
`infringement, and/or invalidity issues. Micron further reserves the right to modify, amend, or
`
`supplement these contentions as discovery proceeds. For example, Micron has not yet deposed
`
`the named inventor of the asserted patents and Plaintiff has not produced any documents relating
`
`to the conception or actual reduction to practice, if any, of the alleged inventions claimed in the
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 3
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff’s deficient Complaint and Infringement Contentions do not provide
`
`the specificity necessary to allow Micron to adequately respond. In fact, Micron moved to
`
`dismiss the Complaint for failure to allege any facts that plausibly suggest infringement of either
`
`the Hot Blocks or Data Integrity Test Limitations found in each of the asserted patents. See D.E.
`
`17. Plaintiff’s briefing on the motion to dismiss did not meaningfully clarify Plaintiff’s theory of
`
`infringement. See D.E. 21. Nor do Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions provide reasonable
`
`notice of Plaintiff’s infringement theory. For example, as Micron explained in its motion to
`
`dismiss, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plausibly allege how Micron SSDs move frequently
`
`written blocks to SLC, how Micron SSDs move data to SLC in response to a “data integrity test”
`
`failure, or how a data integrity test failure in a Micron SSD “results in” the transfer of data to a
`
`different physical range of addresses. See generally D.E. 17. Despite having notice of this
`
`deficiency, Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions merely repeat—essentially verbatim—the
`
`Complaint’s implausible contentions that Micron practices these limitations.
`
`Prior art not included in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, whether known or not
`
`known to Micron, may become relevant. In particular, Micron is currently unaware of the
`
`extent, if any, to which Plaintiff will contend that limitations of the asserted claims are not
`
`disclosed in the prior art identified by Micron. To the extent that such an issue arises, Micron
`
`reserves the right to identify additional teachings or disclosures in the same references or in other
`
`references that disclose or teach the allegedly missing limitation or that would have made the
`
`addition of the allegedly missing limitation to the disclosed method and/or apparatus obvious.
`
`Micron’s claim charts in Exhibits A-1 through D-24 cite to particular teachings and
`
`disclosures in the prior art and apply them to the limitations of the asserted claims. Where
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 4
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Micron cites to a particular figure in a prior art reference, the citation should be understood to
`
`encompass, in addition to the figure itself, the caption and description of the figure as well as any
`
`text relating to a figure. Conversely, where a cited portion of text refers to a figure, the citation
`
`should be understood to include the figure as well.
`
`However, persons having ordinary skill in the art generally may view an item of prior art
`
`in the context of other publications, literature, products, and understanding. As such, the cited
`
`portions are only examples of teachings and disclosures, and Micron reserves the right to rely on
`
`uncited portions of the prior art references and on other publications and expert testimony as aids
`
`in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as providing context thereto, and as
`
`additional evidence that a claim limitation was known, disclosed, or obvious. Micron further
`
`reserves the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references, other publications, other
`
`products, systems, and uses, and testimony to establish the bases and motivations for
`
`combinations of certain cited references that render the asserted claims obvious.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts in Exhibits A-1 through D-24 or elsewhere
`
`identified may disclose the elements of the asserted claims explicitly, impliedly, and/or inherently,
`
`and/or may be relied upon to show the state of the art in the relevant time frame. Micron’s
`
`proposed obviousness arguments or obviousness combinations are provided in the alternative to
`
`Micron’s anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to suggest that any reference
`
`included in the combinations is not by itself anticipatory or by itself obvious rendering.
`
`To the extent that these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions reflect constructions of claim
`
`terms that may be consistent with or implicit in Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`
`no inference is intended or should be drawn that Micron agrees with such claim constructions.
`
`These Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are not intended to reflect Micron’s claim construction
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 5
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`positions, which will be disclosed in due course in accordance with this Court’s Scheduling
`
`Order. Moreover, Micron’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, including the attached claim
`
`charts, may reflect alternative positions as to claim construction and claim scope. Nothing in this
`
`document should be construed as an admission that Micron agrees with Plaintiff’s assertions or
`
`claim constructions or that any claim is valid, enforceable, or infringed.
`
`Micron also reserves all its rights to revise or amend its contentions under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, including for indefiniteness, written description, or non-enablement in light of the Court’s
`
`claim constructions, testimony of the named inventor, or other subsequent developments.
`
`Accordingly, nothing stated herein shall be construed as a waiver of any argument available
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Where Micron cites to a particular figure in a reference, the citation should be understood
`
`to encompass the caption and description of the figure and any text relating to the figure.
`
`Similarly, where Micron cites to particular text that refers to a figure, the citation should be
`
`understood to include the figure and caption as well.
`
`To the extent a prior art reference is identified as part of one or more combinations of
`
`references under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Micron reserves the right to chart that reference independently
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 at a later date should circumstances dictate. Further, in many instances
`
`where a particular contention calls for combining references, any one of a number of references
`
`could be combined. The inclusion of certain exemplary combinations of prior art references
`
`does not exclude other combinations.
`
`Moreover, as certain prior art references are described in multiple related patents or
`
`publications with similar or identical specifications or disclosures, to the extent that Micron has
`
`identified a citation in one reference, Micron reserves the right to rely on parallel or similar
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 6
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`citations in related patents or publications. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would read a prior
`
`art reference and understand a prior art invention as a whole and in the context of other
`
`publications and known technologies. Therefore, to understand and interpret any specific
`
`statement or disclosure of a prior art reference, such persons may rely on other information
`
`within the reference or invention, along with other publications and known technologies. Micron
`
`reserves the right to establish what was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art through
`
`other publications, products, and/or testimony. Micron also reserves the right to rely on uncited
`
`portions of the prior art references, other publications, and testimony to establish that a person of
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine certain of the cited references so as to
`
`render the claims obvious.
`
`In addition to the prior art identified below and the accompanying invalidity claim charts,
`
`Micron also incorporates by reference any invalidity contentions, identified prior art, or
`
`invalidity claim charts disclosed at any date by any party to any other litigation or U.S. Patent &
`
`Trademark Office proceeding involving the asserted patents or any related patent.
`
`Micron further reserves the right to prove the invalidity of the asserted claims on bases
`
`other than those required to be disclosed in these disclosures and contentions, including, but not
`
`limited to, 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).
`
`III.
`
`INVALIDITY OF 298 PATENT
`A.
`
`Invalidity Contentions Based On The Prior Art
`1.
`
`Background of the Prior Art
`
`As shown below, the alleged inventions of the 298 Patent, including the asserted claims
`
`1, 3-5, and 11 and each of the elements of the asserted claims, were well known in the art prior to
`
`the date of the alleged invention. Examples of these disclosures and embodiments are identified
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 7
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`in the following sections and in the attached Invalidity Claim Charts in Exhibits A-1 through A-
`
`23.
`
`2.
`
`Identification of the Prior Art References
`
`Subject to the reservations of rights above, Micron identifies prior art that anticipates
`
`and/or renders obvious one or more of the asserted claims of the 298 Patent. The prior art
`
`references identified are also relevant to show the state of the art and reasons and motivations for
`
`making improvements, additions, modifications, and combinations.
`
`The following prior art references anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of
`
`the 298 Patent and/or illustrate the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention:
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Prior Art Reference
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2011/0239065 (“Byom”)
`Duann, Nelson: “SLC &
`MLC Hybrid”
`Presentation from Flash
`Memory Summit, 2008
`(“Duann”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2011/009460 (“Dusija”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,209,466
`(“Garratt”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,634,240
`(“Gavens”)
`U.S. Pat No. 5,936,971
`(“Harari”)
`Kgil, Roberts, Mudge,
`“Improving NAND Flash
`Based Disk Caches,”
`International Symposium
`on Computer Architecture
`(2008) (“Kgil”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,453,712
`(“Kim”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2010/0205517 (“Lee”)
`
`Ex. A-01
`
`Ex. A-02
`
`Ex. A-03
`
`Ex. A-04
`
`Ex. A-05
`
`Ex. A-06
`
`Ex. A-07
`
`Ex. A-08
`
`Ex. A-09
`
`
`
`
`
`Filing Date
`
`Country of
`Origin
`United States Mar. 24, 2010
`
`Publication
`or Issue Date
`Sep. 29, 2011
`
`
`
`
`
`August 2008
`
`United States
`
`Dec. 18, 2009
`
`Apr. 28, 2011
`
`United States
`
`Dec. 16, 2008
`
`Jun. 26, 2012
`
`United States
`
`Sep. 1, 2010
`
`Jan. 21, 2014
`
`United States
`
`Sep. 16, 1997
`
`Aug. 10, 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`2008
`
`United States
`
`Dec. 20, 2006
`
`Nov. 18, 2008
`
`United States
`
`Dec. 21, 2009
`
`Aug. 12, 2010
`
`- 8 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 8
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Prior Art Reference
`
`Ex. A-10
`
`Ex. A-11
`
`Ex. A-12
`
`Ex. A-13
`
`Ex. A-14
`
`Ex. A-15
`
`Ex. A-16
`
`Ex. A-17
`
`Ex. A-18
`
`Ex. A-19
`
`Ex. A-20
`
`Ex. A-21
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2009/0319721A1 (“Lin”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,825,941
`(“Moshayedi Patent”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2010/0172180 (“Paley”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,418,506
`(“Pashley”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,832,507
`(“Post”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2009/0300269 (“Radke”)
`Roberts, Kgil, Mudge,
`“Integrating NAND Flash
`Devices onto Servers,”
`Communications of the
`ACM, Vol 52 No. 4 (April
`2009) (“Roberts”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,021,177
`(“Segal”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2008/0140918
`(“Sutardja”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2009/0193184A1 (“Yu”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`2009/0327591
`(“Moshayedi App.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,531
`(“Roohparvar”)
`Micheloni, Crippa,
`Marelli, INSIDE NAND
`FLASH MEMORIES
`(Springer, 2010)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,700
`(“Chen”)
`
`Filing Date
`
`Country of
`Origin
`United States Mar. 2, 2009
`
`Publication
`or Issue Date
`Dec. 24, 2009
`
`United States
`
`Jun. 25, 2009
`
`Sep. 2, 2014
`
`United States
`
`Jan. 5, 2009
`
`Jul. 8, 2010
`
`United States
`
`Dec. 31, 1996
`
`Jul. 9, 2002
`
`United States
`
`Aug. 23, 2010
`
`Sep. 9, 2014
`
`United States May 28, 2008
`
`Dec. 3, 2009
`
`
`
`
`
`April 2009
`
`United States
`
`Apr. 28, 2011
`
`Apr. 28, 2015
`
`United States
`
`Dec. 7, 2007
`
`Jun. 12, 2008
`
`United States
`
`Apr. 3, 2009
`
`Jul. 30, 2009
`
`United States
`
`June 25, 2009
`
`Dec. 31, 2009
`
`United States
`
`June 25, 2004
`
`Feb. 26, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`2010
`
`United States
`
`Oct. 28, 2009
`
`July 3, 2012
`
`Table A1 - Prior Art References
`
`Micron is still investigating prior uses. Based upon at least Plaintiff’s apparent positions
`
`as to the scope of the asserted claims, as further explained below and in Exhibits A-22 through
`
`A-23, it appears that the following products (and development thereof) qualify as prior art under
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 9
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`at least one or more of 102(b) or 102(g):
`
`Ex. No.
`
`System
`
`A-22
`
`A-23
`
`Micron/Crucial2 Prior Art Products,
`including the C200, C300, and P300
`SSDs3
`Prior-Art SanDisk Systems
`Table A2 - Prior Art Systems
`
`The above-listed products had both SLC and MLC, and upon information and belief, had,
`
`for example, wear-leveling, verification operations, and various address checking. Information
`
`regarding these products can be found at Exhibits A-22 through A-23, as well as
`
`MCRNVE0007879 – MCRNVE0008666 and WDC_V_0000434 – WDC_V_0002169 (as
`
`produced in Western Digital’s Case No. 6:21-cv-00488-ADA under the interim protective order).
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Micron’s current products infringe, for the same reasons,
`
`this prior art products read on the claims. Micron’s investigation and analysis are still ongoing,
`
`and Micron is further investigating whether it can make the firmware for these products available
`
`for inspection.
`
`3.
`
`Anticipation and Obviousness
`
`Subject to Micron’s reservation of rights, Micron contends that the asserted claims of the
`
`298 Patent are invalid based on anticipation and obviousness.
`
`The references in Tables A1 and A2, alone or in combination with the knowledge of one
`
`skilled in the art, anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims of the 298 Patent. In addition,
`
`
`2 Crucial is a Micron brand. References to “Micron” products in the context of prior art should
`also be understood to include Crucial products.
`3 A claim chart for the Micron C300 SSD can be found at A-22. To the extent that Plaintiff
`argues that Micron’s current products infringe, invalidity of the Asserted Claims as explained in
`the Micron C300 claim chart is representative of the invalidity of the Asserted Claims in view of
`the Micron C200 and Micron P300 SSDs, as well as other Micron/Crucial products.
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 10
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`each of the references in Tables A1 and A2, either alone, in view of the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, in combination with one or more references in Table A1 or Table A2,
`
`and/or in combination with the 298 Patent’s admitted prior art (e.g., 1:61-66, 3:14-17, 3:31-37,
`
`2:26-27, 2:59-65) renders obvious the asserted claims of the 298 Patent.
`
`In addition, Micron incorporates by reference each and every prior art reference of record
`
`in the prosecution of the 298 Patent and any related patent or application (including any
`
`reexaminations, reissue, or other post grant review proceedings), the statements made therein by
`
`the applicant, and the admitted prior art references4 in the specifications of the asserted patents
`
`and related patents.
`
`The cited portions of each prior art reference in the attached charts are exemplary and
`
`representative of the content of the reference, and should be understood in the context of the
`
`reference as a whole, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent a prior art
`
`reference is deemed not to anticipate or render obvious a claim as noted in the attached charts for
`
`failing to disclose, teach, or suggest one or more limitations of a claim, that claim would
`
`nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention over
`
`the reference itself or by the combination of the reference with one or more other references
`
`disclosing the missing claim limitations or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`All of the asserted claims of the 298 Patent are obvious based on one or more
`
`combinations of the prior art references above. The sections below provide motivations to
`
`combine the prior art references above. These obviousness combinations are provided in the
`
`
`4 The admitted prior art of the asserted patents including the systems and methods described in
`the “Background of Invention” sections of the asserted patents.
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 11
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`alternative to Micron’s anticipation and single-reference obviousness contentions and are not to
`
`be construed to suggest that any references included in the combination is not itself anticipatory
`
`or would not render the asserted claims obvious in light of the knowledge of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`4.
`
`Motivation to Combine
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the preceding
`
`references (see Tables A1 and A2) for the following reasons. Teachings, suggestions,
`
`motivations and/or reasons to modify any of the references and/or to combine any two or more of
`
`the references can come from many sources, including the prior art, common knowledge,
`
`common sense, predictability, expectations, industry trends, design incentives or need, market
`
`demand or pressure, market forces, obviousness to try, the nature of the problem faced, and/or
`
`knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Although a patent claim may be invalidated based on a teaching-suggestion-motivation
`
`(“TSM”) rationale—i.e., that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior-art reference or to combine prior-art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention—the Supreme Court identified additional rationales
`
`in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The following of these rationales apply
`
`(A) the asserted claims combine prior-art elements according to known methods
`to yield predictable results;
`
`(B) the asserted claims involve the simple substitution of one known element for
`another to obtain predictable results;
`
`(C) the asserted claims involve the use of a known technique to improve similar
`devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`here:
`
`
`
`
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 12
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`(D) the asserted claims apply a known technique to a known device (method, or
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) the asserted claims involve combinations of prior-art references that would
`have been “obvious to try”’—a person of ordinary skill in the art could have
`reached the asserted claims by choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F) the asserted claims are simply variations of work from one field of endeavor
`or a different one that would have been prompted based on design incentives or
`other market forces because the variations were predictable to one of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 414-18 (rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “rigid” application of the teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine test, and instead espousing an “expansive and flexible”
`
`approach); see also Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, Examination
`
`Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court
`
`Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (Oct. 10, 2007). Indeed,
`
`the Supreme Court held that a person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able
`
`to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-
`
`21.
`
`Thus, even in the absence of a specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
`
`references, the asserted claims here are obvious and therefore invalid. Each of the cited
`
`references or devices is in the same field (i.e., non-volatile memory systems and more
`
`specifically those including flash), making it obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`identify and combine elements from these references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that improvements could be achieved by combining or modifying prior-art references
`
`that described such improvements. Each of the above prior-art references describes devices or
`
`methods that were known to offer such improvements, and, accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 13
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`the art would have been motivated to combine or modify the references as identified in each of
`
`the combinations above. Indeed, given that the references are in the same field, one of ordinary
`
`skill would have readily, with predictable results, taken teachings from one reference and applied
`
`them to other references.
`
`Furthermore, because each prior art reference concerns known flash memory devices,
`
`volatile and non-volatile memory, controllers, MLC, SLC, and the ability to perform memory
`
`management operations including but not limited to translating logical to physical addresses,
`
`common industry knowledge supplied a reason to combine the above references with each other.
`
`See, e.g., Roberts at 101 (“3.2. Architecture of the Flash memory controller. Flash needs
`
`architectural support to improve reliability and lifetime when used as a cache.”). For example,
`
`with flash memory systems that take advantage of the differences between MLC and SLC, a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to employ the technique of allocating frequently written
`
`data to an SLC memory module, which has a faster access time and can handle more wear, and
`
`the more static data to an MLC memory module that is more dense and less expensive. See,
`
`e.g., Yu at [0014] (“MLC flash has a higher storage density and is thus better for storing long
`
`sequences of data; yet the reliability of MLC is less than that of SLC flash. Data that is changed
`
`more frequently is better stored in SLC flash, since SLC is more reliable and rapidly-changing
`
`data is more likely to be critical data than slowly changing data”); Micheloni at 511 (“Many
`
`market applications require both SLC features to reliably store system code and data and MLC
`
`features, to save high density data while requiring lower reliability.”).
`
`As another example, a POSITA would have been motivated to consider implementing the
`
`performance of an operation (usually a read operation) to ensure that data was written without
`
`errors (a data integrity test), which would further improve the performance of an existing device.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 14
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Gavens at 16:46-49 (“Later, the first copy of the data page is read back in a ‘post write
`
`read’ to determine if there are any errors. This is accomplished either by comparison with the
`
`original copy which may be cached or by checking the EDC portion of the ECC.”). Further, it
`
`was routine to include any such additional remapping for a data integrity test, including
`
`transferring failed data from MLC to SLC, because systems in the prior art would already have
`
`the necessary memory to retain data, perform a read, and perform a comparison. See, e.g., 298
`
`Patent at 2:59-3:13; Gavens at 4:21-24 (“If the error bits exceeded a predetermined amount, the
`
`data is rewritten or kept at the less error-prone first portion. This places a limit on the maximum
`
`number of error bits arising from writing data to the memory.”). Each combination would have
`
`produced no unexpected results and would simply represent a known alternative to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for improved flash memory devices. See, e.g., Roberts at 99 (“Second,
`
`we show that a programmable Flash memory controller can improve Flash cell reliability and
`
`extend memory lifetime. The first programmable parameter is error correction code (ECC)
`
`strength. The second is the Flash cell density—changing from multilevel cells (MLC) to single-
`
`level cells (SLC).”); Roberts at 102-103 (“Our programmable Flash memory controller also
`
`dynamically controls the density of a Flash page. Density control benefits Flash performance and
`
`endurance, because we are able to reduce access latency for frequently accessed pages and
`
`possibly improve endurance for aging Flash pages by changing MLC pages into SLC pages as
`
`needed. To show the potential improvement of Flash performance by controlling density, we
`
`present a study using real disk traces.”). Indeed, the references illustrate that many different
`
`types of hot blocks, data integrity testing, or wear leveling techniques were known and suitable
`
`in flash memory storage devices. This is a further motivation to combine any of the above
`
`references.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Vervain Ex. 2013, p. 15
`Micron v. Vervain
`IPR2021-01550
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`The below sections further address particular reasons to combine the above references.
`
`The below should not be construed as an admission that there is any value to the alleged
`
`invention of the 298 Patent. As discussed previously, these contentions are based largely on how
`
`Plaintiff is apparently construing the asserted claim in its Infringement Contentions, which is an
`
`incorrect and overbroad interpretation of the alleged invention of the 298 Patent. Accordingly, to
`
`the extent the below refers to benefits of certain elements or industry trends towards these
`
`elements, this is not an admission that the alleged invention of the 298 Patent provides any
`
`benefits – to the contrary, properly construed and compared to the prior art, the 298 Patent
`
`provides no benefits. Likewise, to the extent the below refers to substituting elements, this is not
`
`an admission that the elements subject to the substitution are in any way similar, e.g., perform
`
`the same function, in the same way, to reach the same result.
`
`The various elements of the asserted claims were well known in the prior art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention, and the combination was obvious to one of skill in the art. The
`
`combination simply (a) combines prior-art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) involves the simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices
`
`(methods, or products) in the same way; (d) applies a known tech