`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 2241
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:13-CV-522-JRG
` (LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`v.
`
`ACER INC., et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`On July 30, 2014, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 6,755,547, 7,300,194, 7,384,177, 7,404,660,
`
`7,434,974, 7,537,370, and 8,215,816. After considering the arguments made by the parties at the
`
`hearing and in the parties’ claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 69, 75, and 82),1 the Court
`
`issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than the
`page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless otherwise indicated. Defendants
`are Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.,
`Huawei Investment and Holding Co. Ltd., Microsoft Corp., Blackberry Ltd., Blackberry Corp.,
`Dell Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`IDT00001
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 2242
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................. 4 
`THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ................................................................................... 6 
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................. 6 
`A. “pattern of deformities” and “pattern of light extracting deformities” ................................. 7 
`B. “continuous side walls” ....................................................................................................... 11 
`C. “transition region” ............................................................................................................... 18 
`D. “at least some of the light extracting deformities on or in one of the sides are of a
`different type than the light extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel
`member” .............................................................................................................................. 23 
`E. “an air gap therebetween” and “an air gap between the film, sheet, plate or substrate
`and the panel member” ....................................................................................................... 30 
`F. “desired light output,” “desired light output distribution,” “desired light output
`distribution or effect,” and “desired light output color or uniformity” ............................... 36 
`G. “predetermined” .................................................................................................................. 38 
`H. “posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount” .......................................... 42 
`I. “well defined optical elements or deformities” and “optical elements or deformities of
`well defined shape” ............................................................................................................. 43 
`J. “a pattern of deformities on one side of the sheet or film having a width and length that
`is quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film” ............................... 47 
`K. “pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss” ......................................................... 51 
`L. “to [suit/fit] a particular application” .................................................................................. 54 
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 57 
`APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 58 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`IDT00002
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 2243
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patents No. 6,755,547 (“the
`
`‘547 Patent”), 7,300,194 (“the ‘194 Patent”), 7,384,177 (“the ‘177 Patent”), 7,404,660 (“the ‘660
`
`Patent”), 7,434,974 (“the ‘974 Patent”), 7,537,370 (“the ‘370 Patent”), and 8,215,816 (“the ‘816
`
`Patent”). All seven of the patents-in-suit are titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” and relate
`
`to backlighting for liquid crystal displays (“LCDs”).
`
`
`
`
`
`The Abstract of the ‘547 Patent is generally representative and states:
`
`Light emitting panel assemblies include a sheet, film or plate overlying a light
`emitting member. The sheet, film or plate has a pattern of deformities on one or
`both sides that may vary or be random in size, shape or geometry, placement,
`index of refraction, density, angle, depth, height and type for controlling the light
`output distribution to suit a particular application. Also the sheet, film or plate
`may have a coating or surface treatment for causing the light to pass through a
`liquid crystal display with low loss.
`
`All of the patents-in-suit claim priority to a common ancestor patent and bear an earliest
`
`priority date of June 27, 1995. The parties submit, at least for purposes of the present claim
`
`construction proceedings, that the patents-in-suit share a common written description and
`
`figures. Dkt. No. 69 at 1; Dkt. No. 75 at 1. For convenience, this Claim Construction
`
`Memorandum and Order refers to the specification of only the ‘547 Patent unless otherwise
`
`indicated.
`
`
`
`Finally, although Plaintiff submitted an expert declaration with its opening claim
`
`construction brief (see Dkt. No. 69, Ex. B, 6/16/2014 Declaration of Kenneth I. Werner), the
`
`Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike that expert declaration. See Dkt. No. 85, 7/11/2014
`
`Order. Therefore, in construing the disputed terms, the Court does not consider the expert
`
`declaration.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`IDT00003
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 2244
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start
`
`by considering the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical
`
`Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns
`
`Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R.
`
`Bard, 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the
`
`entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d
`
`1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`IDT00004
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 2245
`
`Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This
`
`is true because a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than
`
`the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also
`
`resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of
`
`the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be
`
`ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the
`
`specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular
`
`embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the
`
`claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988));
`
`accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
`
`Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
`
`history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`IDT00005
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 2246
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`
`
`The parties have reached agreement on constructions for certain terms, as stated in their
`
`May 5, 2014 P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 61), their
`
`briefing, and their July 14, 2014 P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 89). The
`
`parties’ agreements are set forth in Appendix A to this Claim Construction Memorandum and
`
`Order.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the July 30, 2014 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`preliminary constructions for some of the disputed terms with the aim of focusing the parties’
`
`arguments and facilitating discussion as to those terms. Those preliminary constructions are set
`
`forth below, within the discussion for each term as to which the Court provided a preliminary
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`IDT00006
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 2247
`
`A. “pattern of deformities” and “pattern of light extracting deformities”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning (using the agreed
`definition of “deformities”)
`
`“a pattern of deformities that can be an
`ordinary pattern, random placement pattern, or
`a variable pattern”2
`
`Alternatively:
`“a pattern of deformities, which may
`include a random placement pattern or a
`variable pattern”
`
`
`Dkt. No. 69 at 5; Dkt. No. 75 at 2; Dkt. No. 82 at 1; Dkt. No. 86 at 3. The parties submit that the
`
`first of these disputed terms appears in Claim 1 of the ’547 Patent and Claims 1 and 33 of the
`
`’660 Patent. Dkt. No. 61 at 3. The parties further submit that the second of these disputed terms
`
`appears in Claims 1, 7 and 13 of the ‘974 Patent, Claims 1, 13, 29 and 47 of the ‘370 Patent, and
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘816 Patent. Id. at 9.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the July 30, 2014 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`its preliminary proposal that these disputed terms mean: “a pattern of deformities, which may
`
`include a random placement pattern or a variable pattern.”
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ argument for ‘plain and ordinary’ meaning is an
`
`attempt [to] exclude certain ‘patterns of deformities’ specifically described in the preferred
`
`embodiments of the specification,” such as “variable patterns” and “random placement patterns.”
`
`Dkt. No. 69 at 6. Plaintiff also cites dependent Claim 19 of the ‘547 Patent, quoted below. Id.
`
`at 7.
`
`
`2 Plaintiff previously proposed that “pattern of deformities” means “an arrangement or placement
`of deformities” and that “pattern of light extracting deformities” means “an arrangement or
`placement of light extracting deformities.” Dkt. No. 61 at 3 & 9.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IDT00007
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 2248
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that because the parties agree on the meaning of “deformities” and
`
`because “‘[p]attern’ is not . . . a term of art, . . . construing this common word would not help
`
`clarify its meaning to the jury.” Dkt. No. 75 at 2. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposal
`
`“does not promote clarity because it requires a pattern of deformities to be one of three distinct
`
`things,” which are each set forth using the word “pattern” and “without explaining what any of
`
`these three terms mean or what the difference between them is.” Id. at 3-4.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that its proposal of the phrase “ordinary pattern” is readily
`
`understandable but, alternatively, Plaintiff proposes construing the disputed terms to mean “a
`
`pattern of deformities, which may include a random placement pattern, or a variable pattern.”
`
`Dkt. No. 82 at 1. Plaintiff further argues that “random placement pattern” and “variable pattern”
`
`will be readily understandable to a jury, particularly when “guided by expert testimony.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘547 Patent is representative and recites (formatting modified; emphasis
`
`added):
`
`1. A backlight assembly comprising
`
`a light emitting member having at least one light emitting area that emits
`light that is internally reflected within the light emitting member,
`
`a separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light emitting area with
`an air gap therebetween,
`a pattern of deformities on one side of the sheet or film having a width and
`
`length that is quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film,
`
`the deformities varying at different locations on the sheet or film to direct
`the light that is emitted by the[] light emitting member in different directions to
`produce a desired light output distribution such that the light will pass through a
`liquid crystal display with low loss.
`
`The parties have agreed that the term “deformities” means “any change in the shape or
`
`
`
`geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`IDT00008
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 2249
`
`emitted.” Dkt. No. 61 at 2. As to the significance of the word “pattern,” the specification
`
`discloses:
`
`In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the light emitting panel
`members include a pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions which
`provide a desired light output distribution from the panel members by changing
`the angle of refraction of a portion of the light from one or more light output areas
`of the panel members.
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`
`FIG. 4a is an enlarged plan view of a portion of a light output area of a panel
`assembly showing one form of pattern of light extracting deformities on the light
`output area.
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`
`FIG. 4a schematically shows one such light surface area 20 on which a pattern of
`light extracting deformities or disruptions 21 is provided. As used herein, the
`term deformities or disruptions are [sic] used interchangeably to mean any change
`in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment
`that causes a portion of the light to be emitted. The pattern of light extracting
`deformities 21 shown in FIG. 4a includes a variable pattern which breaks up the
`light rays such that the internal angle of reflection of a portion of the light rays
`will be great enough to cause the light rays either to be emitted out of the panel
`through the side or sides on which the light extracting deformities 21 are provided
`or reflected back through the panel and emitted out the other side.
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`Additionally, the deformities may vary in shape and/or size along the length
`and/or width of the panel members. Also, a random placement pattern of the
`deformities may be utilized throughout the length and/or width of the panel
`members.
`
`‘547 Patent at 1:49-54, 2:18-20, 4:40-53 & 5:51-55 (emphasis modified). Figure 4a of the
`
`patents-in-suit is reproduced here (modified by shrinking the label “Fig. 4a” and by removing an
`
`overlapping portion of Fig. 4d):
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`IDT00009
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 2250
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TTo whatever extent Defenndants’ propposal of “plaiin meaning”” suggests thhat a “patternn”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cannot vaary or cannoot be randomm, any such suggestion iss hereby exprressly rejectted, particulaarly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in light oof the disclossure of Fig. 44a as illustraating a “patteern.” ‘547 PPatent at 4:400-53; see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vitronicss, 90 F.3d at 1582-83 (nooting that a cclaim interprretation in wwhich the onlly embodimeent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or a prefeerred emboddiment “wouuld not fall wwithin the scoope of the paatent claim .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. . is rarely,
`
`if
`
`
`
`ever, corrrect and wouuld require hhighly persuaasive evidenntiary supporrt”). Furtherr, Claim 19 oof
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘547 Patent, whicch depends ffrom Claim 11 (quoted abbove), recitess (emphasis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`added): “Thhe
`
`
`
`sheet or filmm.”
`
`
`deformities wherein the assemblyy of claim 1 w
`
`
`
`randomly vaary in placemment on the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CClarification is nonetheleess warrantedd to explain
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that a “patteern” in the paatents-in-suiit can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`include ““random placcement.” Beecause this mmeaning is seeemingly at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`odds with thhe ordinary,
`
`appropriate
`
`
`
`. See Powerr-One, Inc. vv.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`everydayy meaning off the word “ppattern,” connstruction is
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IDT00010
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 11 of 58 PageID #: 2251
`
`Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The terms, as construed by the
`
`court, must ensure that the jury fully understands the court’s claim construction rulings and what
`
`the patentee covered by the claims.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`
`At the July 30, 2014 hearing, Defendants raised a concern that Plaintiff’s alternative
`
`proposed construction might leave the finder of fact with an impression that a “pattern of
`
`deformities” must be either a random placement pattern or a variable pattern. Instead,
`
`Defendants urged, the Court should construe the disputed terms to have their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, and the Court could explain in its analysis that the disputed terms encompass random
`
`placement patterns and variable patterns. Plaintiff maintained that a construction of the disputed
`
`terms would be clearer. Ultimately, both sides were amenable to a construction conveying that
`
`the disputed terms include, but are not limited to, random placement patterns and variable
`
`patterns.
`
`
`
`The Court accordingly hereby construes “pattern of deformities” and “pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities” to mean “a pattern of deformities, including, but not limited to, a
`
`random placement pattern or a variable pattern.”
`
`B. “continuous side walls”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`In the alternative only, if the Court determines
`that this term should be construed:
`“side walls that completely surround”3
`
`
`
`
`“uninterrupted walls that are free of breaks on
`the side of the tray”
`
`
`3 Plaintiff previously proposed only “side walls that completely surround,” without any proposal
`of plain and ordinary meaning. Dkt. No. 61 at 10.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IDT00011
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 2252
`
`Dkt. No. 69 at 8; Dkt. No. 75 at 5. The parties submit that this disputed term appears in Claims 1
`
`and 15 of the ‘177 Patent. Dkt. No. 61 at 10.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the July 30, 2014 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`its preliminary proposal that this disputed term has its plain meaning.
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants are attempting to read in limitations from the preferred
`
`embodiments. Dkt. No. 69 at 8. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ proposed reference to
`
`“the side of the tray” “adds even more confusion to the term.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff urges that the
`
`plain meaning of this disputed term is clear, particularly in light of surrounding claim language
`
`reciting that the continuous side walls “form a hollow cavity or recess completely surrounded by
`
`the side walls.” Id.
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that “[i]f the reflective walls are not continuous, i.e., have
`
`interruptions or gaps, light can escape the assembly, increasing the amount of light lost.” Dkt.
`
`No. 75 at 6. Defendants conclude that their proposal “is true to the purpose of the side walls and
`
`the intrinsic evidence,” such as the illustration of uninterrupted side walls in Figure 6 of the
`
`patents-in-suit. Id. Defendants also submit that during prosecution, when the patentee added the
`
`term “continuous side walls” to the claims, the patentee distinguished the “Kitazawa” reference
`
`as disclosing side walls that were interrupted or broken by indentations. Id. at 7. Further,
`
`Defendants cite an extrinsic dictionary definition of “continuous,” quoted below. Id. Finally,
`
`Defendants argue that because Plaintiff’s alternative proposal of “that completely surround” “is
`
`already addressed by a handful of words later in the claim,” Plaintiff’s proposal improperly reads
`
`out the word “continuous.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`IDT00012
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 13 of 58 PageID #: 2253
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that even in Figure 6 of the patents-in-suit, cited by Defendants, “the
`
`continuous side walls are interrupted by secondary reflector 38, yet still completely surround
`
`cavity 36.” Dkt. No. 82 at 3. Plaintiff also argues: “At most, the prosecution history merely
`
`confirms that element 12 [in Kitazawa] is not a tray and that even so, its walls do not form a
`
`completely-surrounded, hollow cavity. That statement does not equate to a construction that
`
`requires a tray with ‘uninterrupted walls’ ‘that are free of breaks.’” Id. at 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘177 Patent is representative and recites (formatting modified; emphasis
`
`added):
`
`1. A light emitting assembly comprising
`a tray having a back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow
`
`cavity or recess completely surrounded by the side walls,
`
`at least one light source located, mounted or positioned in the cavity or
`recess, and
`
`at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the assembly for controlling
`the light emitted from the assembly to fit a particular application,
`
`wherein the tray acts as at least one of a back, side edge, and end edge
`reflector and has one or more secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective
`or refractive surfaces to redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by the light
`source in a predetermined manner within the cavity or recess.
`
`The Summary of the Invention states:
`
`In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the panel assemblies may
`include reflective or refractive surfaces for changing the path of a portion of the
`light, emitted from the light source, that would not normally enter the panel
`members at an acceptable angle that allows the light to remain in the panel
`members for a longer period of time and/or increase the efficiency of the panel
`members.
`
`‘547 Patent at 1:41-47. The specification further discloses the desirability of reflecting or
`
`refracting light that would otherwise be lost:
`
`FIG. 2 shows another form of light emitting panel assembly 5 in accordance with
`this invention including a panel light transition area 6 at one end of the light
`emitting panel 7 with sides 8, 9 around and behind the light source 3 shaped to
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IDT00013
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 2254
`
`ms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`more efficienntly reflect annd/or refractt and focus thhe light emittted from thee light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`oource 3 that impinges onn these surfaces back thrrough the ligght transitionn area 6 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ann acceptablee angle for enntering the liight input suurface 18 at oone end of thhe light
`
`
`emmitting paneel 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 3:221-29 (emphaasis added). This objecttive of increaased efficienncy does nott, however,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compel innterpreting ““continuous”” as requirinng uninterruppted side wallls. See Liebbel-Flarsheiim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Co. v. MeMedrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed.. Cir. 2004) ((“The fact thhat a patent aasserts that aan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inventionn achieves seeveral objecttives does noot require th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at each of thhe claims be
`
`construed a
`
`s
`
`
`
`limited too structures tthat are capaable of achieeving all of tthe objectivees.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DDefendants have cited Figgure 6 of thee patents-in-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`suit as illusttrating uninteerrupted sidee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ent at 6:66. 6.” ‘547 Patewalls, as formed by ““tray 35 haviing a cavity or recess 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`AAlthough thiss illustration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may be helppful in underrstanding thee claimed innventions, “ppatent
`
`
`
`Figure 6 is
`
`
`
`
`
`coveragee is not necesssarily limiteed to inventiions that lookk like the onnes in the figgures. To hoold
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`otherwisee would be tto import limmitations [i]nnto the claimm[s] from thee specificatioon, which is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fraught wwith danger.”” MBO Labss. Inc. v. Beccton, Dickinsson & Co., 4474 F.3d 13223, 1333 (Feed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cir. 20077).
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`IDT00014
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 15 of 58 PageID #: 2255
`
`
`
`
`
`AAs for the proosecution hisstory, the paatentee addedd the term “ccontinuous sside walls,” aas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`well as thhe phrase “completely suurrounded byy the side w
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alls,” in respponse to a reejection baseed on
`
`United S
`
`tates Patent
`
`
`
`No. 5,070,431 (“Kitazawwa”). See DDkt. No. 75, EEx. H, 1/22//2008 Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to
`
`Office A
`
`ction of Oct
`
`
`
`ober 3, 20077, at 2 (p. 566 of 94 of Exx. H). The paatentee stateed: “[I]t is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`respectfuully submitteed that the soo-called tray 12 of Kitazaawa does noot have a bacck wall and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`continuouus side wallss that form aa hollow cavvity or recesss completelyy surroundedd by the side
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`walls in wwhich at leasst one light ssource is loccated, mountted or positiooned as recitted in claimss 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 16 ass amended.” Id. at 8 (p. 62 of 94 of Ex. H). Figgure 2 of Kitaazawa is repproduced herre:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BBecause the ““light guide pplate 12” of f Kitazawa (ssee Kitazawaa at 2:27-3:445) includes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“recessess 12a and 122b” (see id. aat 3:15-20) thhat are illustrrated as beinng completelly open-endeed,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the patenntee’s statemments distinguuishing Kitaazawa cannott be fairly reead as requirring that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“continuoous” side waalls must be uninterrupteed, as Defenddants here ppropose. Seee Omega Engg’g v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Raytek CCorp., 334 F.
`
`3d 1314, 13
`
`
`
`24 (Fed. Cirr. 2003) (“Ass a basic prinnciple of claaim
`
`
`
`interpretaation, proseccution disclaaimer promottes the publiic notice funnction of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`intrinsic
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`IDT00015
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 16 of 58 PageID #: 2256
`
`evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.”)
`
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 1325-26 (“[F]or prosecution disclaimer to attach, our precedent
`
`requires that the alleged disavowing actions or statements made during prosecution be both clear
`
`and unmistakable”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`As to extrinsic evidence, Defendants have cited a dictionary definition of “continuous” as
`
`meaning: “Uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or extent.” Dkt. No. 75, Ex. I, The
`
`American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 408 (3d ed. 1996). The same dictionary,
`
`however, includes another definition of “continuous” as meaning: “Attached together in repeated
`
`units: [e.g.,] a continuous form fed into a printer.” Id. (emphasis modified). Presumably, units
`
`could still be “repeated” even if they included openings. See id. Further, “heavy reliance on the
`
`dictionary divorced from the intrinsic evidence risks transforming the meaning of the claim term
`
`to the artisan into the meaning of the term in the abstract, out of its particular context, which is
`
`the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321.
`
`
`
`In sum, nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or extrinsic evidence demands
`
`an “uninterrupted” limitation or a “free of breaks” limitation such as Defendants have proposed.
`
`
`
`At the July 30, 2014 hearing, Defendants further urged that the patentee’s use of
`
`“continuous,” as a limitation separate from the phrase “completely surrounded,” means that if the
`
`side walls are made up of separate segments, then the side walls are not continuous, even if the
`
`segments are in contact with one another. Defendants submitted that only if such segments were
`
`bonded or glued together would the side walls be “continuous.” Plaintiff responded that the
`
`claims recite no “one piece” limitation. On balance, issues such as whether the side walls could
`
`be composed of segments and, if so, whether such segments must be bonded or fused, are
`
`ultimate factual issues that must be evaluated with reference to particular accused
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`IDT00016
`