UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2014-01096
`
`Patent 7,537,370
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,537,370
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2014-01096
`
`Patent 7,537,370
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`MR. WERNER’S DECLARATION SHOULD BE GIVEN LITTLE TO
`NO WEIGHT .................................................................................................1
`CLAIMS 15 AND 27 ARE OBVIOUS OVER PRISTASH.......................3
`A.
`Pristash Discloses the “Panel Member Ha[ving] a Transition Region
`Between the at Least One Input Edge and the Patterns of Light
`Extracting Deformities to Allow the Light From the at Least One
`Light Source to Mix and Spread.” .......................................................4
`Pristash Discloses “At Least One Side of the Transition Region
`Contains Optical Elements for Reflecting or Refracting Light From
`the at Least One Light Source.”...........................................................6
`Pristash Discloses “Deformities on or in the at Least One Side
`Ha[ving] at Least Two Different Types.”............................................7
`III. CLAIMS 15 AND 27 ARE OBVIOUS OVER KOBAYASHI IN VIEW
`OF PRISTASH.............................................................................................12
`IV. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST...................................................................13
`V.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ..........................14
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529.....................................................................................................2
`
`Numatics, Inc. v. Balluff, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176759 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2014) ...............................3
`
`Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co.,
`826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................2
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054.....................................................................................................1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”)
`EP500960 (“Ohe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 (“Kobayashi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”)
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press
`Inc., San Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-13 and Ch. 8
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658 (“Ohtake”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”)
`3M product brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness Enhancement Film
`(BEF),” 2 pages (1993)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`Declaration of Jamie Beaber
`6/16/2015 Deposition of Mr. Kenneth Werner
`3/26/2015 Deposition of Dr. Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti Dep.”)
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`In its January 13, 2015 Institution Decision on the ’370 Patent, the Board
`
`correctly found that Petitioner LG Display is likely to prevail in showing that (a)
`
`claims 15 and 27 are obvious over Pristash; and (b) claims 15 and 27 are obvious
`
`over Kobayashi in view of Pristash. See Decision, Paper 11, at 17. Patent Owner
`
`Innovative Display Technologies, LLC’s Response does not rebut the Petition, Dr.
`
`Escuti’s opinions, or the Board’s institution decision. See Response, Paper 24.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner’s Response is nearly identical to the declaration of its
`
`expert, Mr. Werner, who offers no technical opinions but rather challenges the
`
`sufficiency of the disclosure in the Petition. Thus, as explained below, it should be
`
`given no weight.
`
`I.
`
`MR. WERNER’S DECLARATION SHOULD BE GIVEN LITTLE TO
`NO WEIGHT
`
`Mr. Werner’s declaration should be given little to no weight for at least two
`
`reasons. First, the patent and prior art analysis sections of Mr. Werner’s declaration
`
`are nearly identical to those sections of the Patent Owner Response. Compare
`
`Paper No. 24, at 8-15 with Ex. 2005, at ¶¶38-49. Indeed, Mr. Werner admitted
`
`during his deposition that he would not be surprised to learn that the Patent Owner
`
`Response was nearly identical to his declaration. See Ex.1020, at 104:2-5. Because
`
`Mr. Werner’s declaration simply tracks the arguments in the Response and is
`
`nearly identical, his declaration is not helpful and should be given no probative
`
`weight. See, e.g., Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., IPR2013-00054,
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`Paper No. 12, at 12 (April 8, 2013) (“The Declaration . . . appears, for the most
`
`part, simply to track and repeat the arguments for unpatentability presented in the
`
`Petition [and] . . . is therefore no more helpful that [sic] the Petition in determining
`
`where the challenged recitation is found in the references.”); see also Kinetic
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper No. 8, at 18 (Sept.
`
`23, 2014) (“Paragraphs 28, 29, and 30 of Dr. Mohapatra’s Declaration essentially
`
`are identical to the corresponding text of the Petition. Based on our analysis above,
`
`we give Dr. Mohapatra’s Declaration no probative weight.”).
`
`Second, Mr. Werner’s declaration should be given no weight because he
`
`provides no technical opinions on the prior art. Mr. Werner frequently states that
`
`“the Petition fails to show” or “the Petitioner fails to show,” but offers no
`
`affirmative opinion challenging the disclosure in the prior art and supporting his
`
`conclusory statements. See, e.g., Ex. 2005, at ¶¶ 38, 48. Notably, Mr. Werner
`
`admitted during his deposition that he was only challenging the disclosure in the
`
`Petition and was not addressing the disclosure of claim limitations in the prior art.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1020, at 106:6-14. This is not surprising because Mr. Werner, when
`
`pressed on cross-examination, generally admitted that most of the elements of the
`
`claims at issue were present in the prior art. Because Mr. Werner has not provided
`
`any technical expert opinions in his declaration, his declaration is not helpful and
`
`should be given no probative weight. Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`424 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Dr. Johnson’s testimony is no more than [plaintiff’s]
`
`testimony dressed up and sanctified as the opinion of an expert. Without more than
`
`credentials and a subjective opinion, an expert’s testimony that ‘it is so’ is not
`
`admissible.”); Numatics, Inc. v. Balluff, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176759, *6-
`
`18 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2014) (“An expert witness who is merely a party’s
`
`lawyer’s avatar contributes nothing useful to the decisional process.”)
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Mr. Werner’s declaration should be
`
`afforded little to no weight.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIMS 15 AND 27 ARE OBVIOUS OVER PRISTASH
`
`For obviousness over Pristash alone, Patent Owner argues that the Petition
`
`does not show that Pristash discloses “the panel member has a transition region
`
`between the at least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities
`
`to allow the light from the at least one light source to mix and spread,” as required
`
`by claim 27. Response, at 8-9, 12-13. Second, Patent Owner argues that Pristash
`
`does not disclose “at least one side of the transition region contains optical
`
`elements for reflecting or refracting light from the at least one light source,” as
`
`required by claim 27. Id. at 9-10. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Pristash does
`
`not disclose “the pattern of light extracting deformities on or in the at least one side
`
`has at least two different types of light extracting deformities and at least one of the
`
`types of deformities on or in the at least one side varies along at least one of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`length and width of the panel member,” as required by claims 15 and 27. Id. at 10-
`
`12.
`
`Patent Owner is wrong. As discussed below, both the Petition and the Escuti
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1004, “Escuti Decl.”) explicitly demonstrate how Pristash renders
`
`obvious the above-referenced claim limitations.
`
`A.
`
`Pristash Discloses the “Panel Member Ha[ving] a Transition
`Region Between the at Least One Input Edge and the Patterns of
`Light Extracting Deformities to Allow the Light From the at Least
`One Light Source to Mix and Spread.”
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that because the panel member has a transition
`
`region to allow the light from the at least one light source to mix and spread, that
`
`means that the transition region must be part of the panel member such that the
`
`light can mix and spread. Response, at 8-9. This is a clear refashioning of its
`
`argument in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, that improperly imported a
`
`requirement into the claim language, namely, that “the transition region must be a
`
`part of the panel member.” Preliminary Response, Paper 9, at 8. The Board
`
`already rejected this argument (Decision, Paper 11, at 9), and should continue to
`
`reject an almost identical argument now presented by Patent Owner.
`
`Now, instead of arguing that the transition region must be integral with the
`
`panel member, Patent Owner argues that Pristash fails to show light mixing and
`
`only discloses the transition device “spread[ing] the light evenly across such
`
`surfaces.” Response, at 9. However, this argument ignores a Pristash citation
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`included in the Petition and in the Escuti Declaration: “a transition device is
`
`provided for converting easily focused light received from a light source to the
`
`shape of the panel input surface.” See, e.g., Petition, at 21, 25; Ex. 1004, at ¶110
`
`(citing Pristash, at 1:59-62). In order to convert the shape of the light from that of
`
`the light source to that of the panel input surface, the light will mix and spread to
`
`fill in the shape of the panel input surface. As Dr. Escuti testifies, “indeed, the light
`
`will spread and mix within that [transition] region and that’s why it’s there.” Ex.
`
`1021, Escuti Dep., at 108:19-21.
`
`Patent Owner also contends that transition device 5 cannot be the claimed
`
`transition region because it is not between at least one input edge and the pattern of
`
`light extracting deformities. Response, at 13. Patent Owner mischaracterizes
`
`Petitioner’s argument, elucidated during Dr. Escuti’s deposition, which refers to
`
`Fig. 1 of Pristash (reproduced below). When asked about Pristash’s disclosure of
`
`the transition region, Dr. Escuti explained that when “the transition device 5 can be
`
`integral with the panel member,” “as described in the beginning of paragraph 109
`
`[of the Escuti Decl.], Pristash calls element 5 a transition device that’s arranged
`
`between an input edge 10 and the pattern of light disruptions labeled 16.” Ex,
`
`1021, at 105:4-7; 104:2-6; see also Petition, at 13, 47 (“Pristash, however,
`
`discloses transition device 5 between the input edge 10 and disruptions 16. Ex.
`
`1006, 2:64-3:4.”). An additional interpretation is “if the unit is not integral, then
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`the transition region is the portion between the input side 4 and the elements 16,
`
`the disruptions….” Ex, 1021, at 105:16-19; see also Petition, at 12 (annotated
`
`figure). Therefore, Dr. Escuti offered two explanations of Pristash disclosing the
`
`positional requirement of the claim limitation. This deposition testimony elicited
`
`by Patent Owner was entirely ignored by Patent Owner in its Response.
`
`B.
`
`Pristash Discloses “At Least One Side of the Transition Region
`Contains Optical Elements for Reflecting or Refracting Light
`From the at Least One Light Source.”
`
`Patent Owner repeats, without adding more, an argument that was already
`
`rejected by the Board. Namely, Patent Owner argues that Pristash does not disclose
`
`“at least one side of the transition region contains optical elements,” because the
`
`lens 141 is not plural. Response, at 10; Preliminary Response, at 10. As the Board
`
`already noted, “Nothing in the ʼ370 patent specification suggests that ‘optical
`
`elements’ should be restricted to one lens, or that using two or more lenses instead
`
`of one would not have been obvious. Moreover, Figures 15 and 18 of Pristash
`
`show multiple ‘optical elements.’ Ex. 1006, col. 7, ll. 18, 50–51.” Decision, at 9.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`Patent Owner fails to make a convincing point now, as it failed several months
`
`before.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Escuti points to another example of the transition device
`
`including optical elements. Specifically, Pristash discloses that “[t]he transition
`
`device 120 shown in FIG. 15 comprises a plurality of optical fibers 121….”
`
`Pristash, at 7:17-18. Pristash meets the claim limitation because “claim 27, for
`
`example, says that the transition region must contain optical elements for reflecting
`
`and refracting light. This is what those optical fibers do and what they accomplish
`
`and how they accomplish it.” Ex. 1021, at 113:6-10.
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Pristash
`
`discloses the limitations “the panel member has a transition region between the at
`
`least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities to allow the
`
`light from the at least one light source to mix and spread,” and “at least one side of
`
`the transition region contains optical elements for reflecting or refracting light from
`
`the at least one light source.”
`
`C.
`
`Pristash Discloses “Deformities on or in the at Least One Side
`Ha[ving] at Least Two Different Types.”
`
`Patent Owner futilely argues that Dr. Escuti only relies on one citation and
`
`conclusory statements to support his opinion that Pristash discloses “the pattern of
`
`light extracting deformities on or in the at least one side has at least two different
`
`types of light extracting deformities and at least one of the types of deformities on
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`or in the at least one side varies along at least one of the length and width of the
`
`panel member.” Response, at 10-11. Patent Owner is incorrect for several reasons.
`
`First, Patent Owner confuses its argument with another claim limitation that
`
`is not at issue here. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that because Pristash
`
`discloses “both of the light emitting panels 40 and 49 shown in FIGS. 5 and 6 may
`
`have prismatic surfaces on both the top and bottom surfaces rather than on just one
`
`surface as shown,” (Pristash, at 4:66-5:5), it does not mean that Pristash discloses
`
`“a pattern of light extracting deformities that may be formed on both the front and
`
`back sides of the light emitting panels.” Response, at 10-11. Patent Owner goes so
`
`far as to reiterate the Board’s finding on this matter, relating to claims 1 and 13. Id.
`
`at 11. This is a straw man. Claims 1 and 13 are not at issue here; only claims 15
`
`and 27 are at issue.
`
`Second, Patent Owner completely ignores the citations provided in the
`
`Petition and the Escuti Declaration that are directly on point.
`
`Instead, Patent
`
`Owner cites to ¶¶77-78 of the Escuti Declaration, paragraphs that discuss a
`
`different limitation altogether, as discussed above. Pristash discloses the relevant
`
`claim limitation at numerous places. See, e.g., Petition, at 17-18 (citing Pristash, at
`
`4:45-54; Fig. 5; 4:57-66; 4:66-5:5; Fig. 6); Ex. 1004, at ¶¶83-85 (citing Pristash, at
`
`4:49-54; Fig. 5; 4:57-66; Fig. 6; 4:66-5:5). Dr. Escuti expounds on these citations
`
`at length, and explains:
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`In discussing the deformities in Fig. 5 above, Pristash explains that
`“[a]lthough the deformities 42 are shown as being of a generally
`triangular shape, they may be of any desired shape that causes light
`to be emitted, and may vary in depth and shape along the length of
`the prism edges 43.” Id. at 4:49-54 (emphasis added). Regarding the
`deformities in Fig. 6 below, Pristash explains that “diffuser surfaces
`46 may be formed along the top edges 47 of the prismatic surfaces 48
`of a prismatic film light emitting panel 49 as schematically shown in
`FIG. 6. These diffuser surfaces 46 may vary in depth and/or width
`along the length of the panel 49, and may comprise a roughened
`surface, a lenticular surface, or a prismatic surface or the like that
`consists of multiple surface deformities. A roughened surface, for
`example, may be produced by grinding, sanding, laser cutting or
`Id. at 4:57-66 (emphasis added). Therefore, Pristash
`milling.”
`discloses different types of deformities that may have any desired
`shape, including surfaces that are prismatic, diffuse or roughened,
`lenticular, and combinations thereof.
`
`Ex. 1004, at ¶83. Dr. Escuti provides an example of the pattern of light extracting
`
`deformities on or in the at least one side has at least two different types of light
`
`extracting deformities (prismatic surfaces 48, diffuser surfaces 46 which may
`
`comprise a roughened surface,
`
`lenticular surface or prismatic surface) and
`
`disclosure of the deformities varying in shape or depth along the length of the
`
`prism edges.
`
`Furthermore, Mr. Werner agreed that prismatic surfaces,
`
`roughened
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`surfaces, and lenticular surfaces are all different types of deformities.1 Ex. 1020, at
`
`109:10-113:24.
`
`Finally, when asked about this very subject during his deposition, Dr. Escuti
`
`explains clearly:
`
`A: Well, for the purposes of this analysis, I identified in figure 6 the
`two types [of deformities] are the triangular microprisms [48] as one
`type and the diffuser surface 46 is the second type.
`Q: So a microprism is a different type than a diffuser surface, is that
`right?
`A: They are two different types of deformities as we talked about
`earlier.
`
`… Q
`
`: And you said a moment ago that you believe that deformities
`shown by 46 are of a different type than those shown by 48, is that
`right?
`A: That’s correct.
`
`Ex. 1021, 97:20-98:5; 99:12-16.
`
`Figure 6 of Pristash has been reproduced here for convenience.
`
`1 Mr. Werner also agreed that Pristash disclosed additional limitations of claims 15
`
`and 27. See Ex. 1020, at 106:18-109:4, 113:25-114:5.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`Dr. Escuti, in responding to Patent Owner’s questioning, further crystallizes
`
`the relevant facts:
`
`Q: I think I’m just confused about how surface, I guess, 47, is both the
`surface of the prismatic deformity 48 and the side of the light guide as
`required by claim 15. How can it be both?
`A: The surface – the entire upper surface is the side of the panel
`member, and it happens to be formed into microprisms, and on those
`microprisms a second deformity of this roughened surface is
`illustrated in figure 6. And, of course, in the text in Pristash he also
`says this roughened surface could be a lenticular surface, a
`prismatic surface, or the [like] that consists of multiple surface
`deformities. So the surfaces of the two elements you just asked me
`about are coincident, they are the same surface.”
`
`Ex. 1021, at 101:10-102:6 (emphasis added) (objections omitted).
`
`Patent Owner completely ignores this testimony and instead cherry picks
`
`one piece of disclosure in the Petition and Escuti Declaration, characterizing that
`
`piece as the only disclosure. Pristash did not “merely disclose that the deformities
`
`may generally be of any desired shape,” and that is not the only statement that “can
`
`be read to mean that different type of deformities could be used on or in at least
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`one side.” Response, at 12. The Petition and Dr. Escuti cite to several passages of
`
`Pristash that disclose the instant limitation, and provides extensive analysis, that
`
`Patent Owner
`
`intentionally disregards and paints as “simply draw[ing] a
`
`conclusion based on assumptions and conjecture.” Response, at 12.
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Pristash
`
`discloses all of the limitations of claims 15 and 27 of the ’370 Patent, particularly
`
`those limitations that Patent Owner zeroes in on in its response. For at least the
`
`foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that challenged claims 15 and 27
`
`of the ’370 Patent be deemed unpatentable as obvious over Pristash and should be
`
`canceled.
`
`III. CLAIMS 15 AND 27 ARE OBVIOUS OVER KOBAYASHI IN VIEW
`OF PRISTASH
`
`For obviousness over Kobayashi in view of Pristash, Patent Owner relies
`
`only on its arguments that Pristash fails to disclose the same claim elements as
`
`discussed above. See, e.g., Response, at 14-15. For the reasons explained above,
`
`Pristash affirmatively discloses the limitation “where the pattern of light extracting
`
`deformities on or in the at least one side has at least two different types of light
`
`extracting deformities and at least one of the types of deformities on or in the at
`
`least one side varies along at least one of the length and width of the panel
`
`member.”
`
`Furthermore, as explained above Pristash discloses the limitation “the panel
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`member has a transition region between the at least one input edge and the patterns
`
`of light extracting deformities to allow the light from the at least one light source to
`
`mix and spread.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, Pristash discloses the
`
`transition region between the input edge and the pattern of light extracting
`
`deformities, as explained in detail above.
`
`For all the limitations upon which Petitioner relies on Kobayashi, Mr.
`
`Werner agreed they were disclosed in Kobayashi. See Ex. 1020, at 118:6-121:12.
`
`Patent Owner never challenges the motivation to combine Kobayashi with Pristash
`
`in its Response. As such, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that Kobayashi in view of Pristash renders claims 15 and 27 of the ’370 Patent
`
`obvious and therefore unpatentable.
`
`IV. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`Patent Owner repeats its argument regarding the real party-in-interest, even
`
`though the Board has already ruled on this ground. Decision, at 16-17.
`
`Specifically, the Board found that because “LG Electronics Inc. is not even a
`
`majority owner of Petitioner,” “the fact that the attorneys representing Petitioner
`
`here also represent LG Electronics Inc. in a district court lawsuit involving the
`
`ʼ370 patent, without more, is insufficient evidence of control of this proceeding by
`
`LG Electronics,” and “Patent Owner’s contention that LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc.
`
`also is a real party-in-interest simply because it
`
`is ‘100% owned by LG
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`Electronics, Inc.’ is not persuasive,” the Board determined that the Petition should
`
`not be denied on this ground. Patent Owner never sought discovery on this issue in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner does not even request relief based on this
`
`argument. Patent Owner simply rehashes its arguments for a page and a half, but
`
`then only requests that “the Board find that Claims 15 and 27 of the ’370 Patent are
`
`not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Pristash or by Kobayashi in view of
`
`Pristash.” Response, at 17. Without a proper statement of precise relief requested,
`
`any argument based on a real party-in-interest should not be considered.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner identifies the following disputed material facts:
`
`Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s characterization of Admitted Prior Art.
`
`Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Admitted Prior Art qualifies as prior
`
`art under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For
`
`the foregoing reasons, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests
`
`that
`
`the
`
`challenged claims 15 and 27 of the ’370 Patent be deemed unpatentable and should
`
`be canceled.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`Dated: July 8, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Robert G Pluta Reg No 50970/
`Robert G. Pluta
`Registration No. 50,970
`Amanda K. Streff
`Registration No. 65,224
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8641
`Facsimile: 312-701-7711
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
`Jamie B. Beaber
`Baldine B. Paul
`Registration No. 54,369
`Anita Y. Lam
`Registration No. 67,394
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202-263-3000
`Facsimile: 202-263-3300
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counsel for LG Display Co. Ltd.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096: Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 8th day of July, 2015, a copy of the
`
`attached PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITION FOR INTER
`
`PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,537,370, was served by e-mail
`
`pursuant to Patent Owner’s consent in its Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.8(a)(2) and 42.8(b): jkimble@bcpc-law.com and jbragalone@bcpc-law.com.
`
`Date: July 8, 2015
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Robert G Pluta Reg No 50970/
`Robert G. Pluta
`Registration No. 50,970
`Mayer Brown LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8641
`Facsimile: 312-701-7711
`
`Counsel for LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`16
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
