Case 2:09-cv-06900-FMO-RNB Document 72 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1768

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP DAVID A. JAKOPIN (S.B. No. 209950) david.jakopin@pillsburylaw.com 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 233-4500 Fax: (650) 233-4545 RICHARD H. ZAITLEN (S.B. No. 063283) richard.zaitlen@pillsburylaw.com CAROLYN S. TOTO (S.B. No. 233825) carolyn.toto@pillsburylaw.com 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017-5406 Telephone: (213) 488-7100 Facsimile: (213) 629-1033 Attorneys for Defendant INPHI CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION NETLIST, INC., A Delaware Corporation, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) INPHI CORPORATION, A Delaware ) Corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) Case No. CV-09-6900-FMO (RNBx) DEFENDANT INPHI CORPORATIONS SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND STAY Courtroom: F 9th Floor Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Magistrate: Hon. Robert N. Block

704076450v1

Case No. CV-09-6900-FMO (RNBx) INPHIS SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND STAY

Case 2:09-cv-06900-FMO-RNB Document 72 Filed 01/30/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:1769

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to the Courts February 6, 2012 Order Granting Inphi Corporations Request to Extend Stay [Doc. No. 68] (Order), Defendant Inphi Corporation (Inphi) hereby files this Second Request to Extend Stay to notify the Court of Inphis position that the stay should be extended. For all the same reasons presented in its Motion to Stay briefs and prior requests to continue or extend the stay [Docket Nos. 27, 31, 52, 65], Inphi respectfully submits that it would best serve the interests of judicial economy to extend the current stay. I. United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Proceedings Involving the Asserted Patents In the February 6, 2012 Order to extend the stay of this action where the Court requested this position paper on whether to extend the existing stay, the Court also stated that [T]he Court is of the opinion that the stay should be extended until the conclusion of the reexamination and interference proceedings. Inphi agrees with that assessment. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the PTO) has continued to take steps forward in each of the reexaminations of the Asserted Patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 (the 537 patent, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,381), U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 (the 912 patent, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,339 (which has been merged with Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,578 and 95/000,579)), and U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 (the 274 patent, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,337). The following provides the Court with an update on substantive actions taken in connection with the PTO proceedings involving the Asserted Patents since Inphis Request to Extend Stay [Docket No. 65], filed on January 30, 2012. A. The 537 Patent The PTO, in a communication dated February 7, 2012 issued a Right of Appeal Notice, indicating that the previous amendments to claims made by Netlist

704076450v1

-1-

Case No. CV-09-6900-FMO (RNBx) INPHIS SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND STAY

Case 2:09-cv-06900-FMO-RNB Document 72 Filed 01/30/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1770

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

would be entered, and that the currently pending claims, as amended, were patentable. Inphi, disagreeing with the basis on which the claims were allowed and continuing to assert that the claims are invalid and should have been rejected, filed a Notice of Appeal with the PTO on March 8, 2012 and its Appeal Brief on May 8, 2012. Netlist filed its Responsive Appeal Brief on July 2, 2012. The parties are awaiting a further communication from the PTO in order for the appeal process to proceed. B. The 912 Patent As background on February 28, 2011, Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,578, 95/000,579 and 05/001,339 were merged. With respect to the merged Reexam, in this last year, in response to the second non-final Office Action dated October 14, 2011 and the Netlist Response of January 13, 2012, Inphis comments, as well as the other Requestors comments, were submitted on or about February 13, 2012, disputing the patentability of the pending claims. The PTO issued a Nonfinal Office Action on November 13, 2012, rejecting some claims and indicating that others contained allowable subject matter. After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond from the PTO, on January 14, 2013 Netlist filed a Response to the Non-final Office Action which presented further claim amendments and evidence supporting its positions regarding patentability. Comments from Inphi and the other Requestors are due by February 13, 2013, after which the PTO will determine its position regarding the claims in their current form, and proceeding will proceed from there, with a likelihood this 912 Reexam will proceed toward the appeal stage, one way or another. C. The 274 Patent The PTO, on March 12, 2012, issued an Action Closing Prosecution, indicating that the pending claims contain allowable subject matter b based on the

704076450v1

-2-

Case No. CV-09-6900-FMO (RNBx) INPHIS SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND STAY

Case 2:09-cv-06900-FMO-RNB Document 72 Filed 01/30/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:1771

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

previously submitted Response of Netlist and Comments from Inphi and on June 22, 2012 issued a Right of Appeal Notice. Inphi, disagreeing with the basis on which the claims were allowed and continuing to assert that the claims are invalid and should have been rejected, filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2012 and its Appeal Brief on September 24, 2012. Netlist filed its Responsive Appeal Brief on October 24, 2012. The parties are awaiting a further communication from the PTO in order for the appeal process to proceed. D. Interference Proceedings As previously noted, two interference proceedings have also been initiated against the Asserted Patents: one by Sanmina-SCI (SSC) and its licensee Inphi as to all of the Asserted Patents, which bears U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 11/142,989 (the SSC 989 Application), and another by Smart Modular Technologies as between the 912 Patent and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/902,073 (the 073 Application). No interferences have yet been declared. Regarding the SSC interference and the SSC 989 Application, the PTO mailed a non-final Office Action on December 20, 2012 rejecting the pending claims in the 989 application. II. exist. Extending the stay will allow the parties and this Court to gain the benefit of the PTOs reexaminations in view of the new prior art references and in view of any input provided by the parties, including cancellations and/or amendments of the scope of the claims -- many of which already exist and are apparent by virtue of the proceedings that have occurred to date. Allowing further developments to take place before continuing the present litigation involving the same patents will simplify issues for the Court and streamline proceedings. Extending the stay will Request to Extend Stay The same reasons set forth previously for extending the stay continue to

704076450v1

-3-

Case No. CV-09-6900-FMO (RNBx) INPHIS SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND STAY

Case 2:09-cv-06900-FMO-RNB Document 72 Filed 01/30/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:1772

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

also avoid unnecessary duplication and wasted effort that would result if the Court were to concurrently address the validity of the Asserted Patents over the same issues and same prior art as the PTO in the Reexamination proceedings. Separate and distinct from the reexaminations, extending the stay pending the potential interferences will also facilitate judicial economy. Extending the stay pending the interferences will provide a determination of priority of inventorship between SSC and Netlist regarding the asserted claims as well as a determination of the scope of Inphis license rights with respect to the interference proceeding. Thus, extending the stay in regards to the interferences will allow the possible elimination of some or all of the asserted claims for trial. As such, it is Inphis position that the stay should be extended until the conclusion of the reexamination and interference proceedings. Inphi also requests the Court to order the parties to file the next papers stating their position on whether the stay should continue to be extended by January 30, 2014. Dated: January 30, 2013 Respectfully submitted, DAVID A. JAKOPIN RICHARD H. ZAITLEN CAROLYN S. TOTO PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP By: /s/ Richard H. Zaitlen Richard H. Zaitlen Attorneys for Defendant INPHI CORPORATION

704076450v1

-4-

Case No. CV-09-6900-FMO (RNBx) INPHIS SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND STAY