throbber
Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby files this preliminary response (“Preliminary Response”) to the
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 (the
`
`“Petition”) in IPR2014-01096 filed by LG Display Co., LTD (“LGD” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`
`
`The PTAB should deny the Petition’s request to institute an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 (the “’370 patent”) because the grounds
`
`in the Petition do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of any claims being
`
`invalid. Furthermore, the PTAB should deny the Petition because it fails to identify
`
`several real parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`To explain the insufficiencies of the grounds in the Petition, the Preliminary
`
`Response first provides an introduction that outlines (1) the Grounds themselves;
`
`and (2) claim construction issues.
`
`
`
`This Response is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it
`
`is filed within three months of the July 16, 2014, date of the Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
`
`(Paper No. 3.) Patent Owner has limited its identification of deficiencies in
`
`Petitioner’s argument in this Preliminary Response; Patent Owner does not intend
`
`to waive any arguments by not addressing them in this Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`A. Grounds in Petition
`The Petition includes four grounds of alleged invalidity. This Response
`
`
`
`addresses three of those grounds as described below. Patent Owner does not address
`
`Ground 3 in this preliminary response, but reserves its right to argue against Ground
`
`3 if this IPR is instituted:
`
`Ground 1: Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Pristash
`(Claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15, 27, 29, 47)
`
`
`A. No Disclosure of Element [1.e] - “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”;
`
`B. No Disclosure of Element [13.e] - “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”;
`
`C. No Disclosure of Element [13.f] - “the panel member has a
`transition region…”;
`
`D. No Disclosure of Element [13.g] - “at least one side of the transition
`region contains optical elements…”;
`
`E. No Disclosure of Element [27.e] - “the panel member has a
`transition region…”;
`
`F. No Disclosure of Element [27.f] - “at least one side of the transition
`region contains optical elements…”;
`
`G. No Disclosure of Element [29.e] - “light extracting deformities on
`or in one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the
`light extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel
`member”;
`
`H. No Disclosure of Element [47.e] - “light extracting deformities on
`or in one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the
`light extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel
`member”;
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`I. No Disclosure of Element [47.f] - “the panel member has a
`transition region…”;
`
`J. No Disclosure of Element [47.g] - “at least one side of the transition
`region contains optical elements…”;
`
`Ground 2: Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being anticipated by Ohe
`(Claims 1, 4, 8, 15, and 29,)
`
`
`A. No Disclosure of Element [1.e] - “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”;
`
`B. No Allegation of the Elements of Claim 15
`
`C. No Disclosure of Element [29.e] - “light extracting deformities on
`or in one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the
`light extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel
`member”;
`
`Ground 4: Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Kobayashi in
`view of Pristash (Claims 13, 15, 27, and 47)
`
`
`A. No Disclosure of Element [13.f], [27.e], and [47.f] - “the panel
`member has a transition region…”;
`
`B. No Disclosure of Element [13.g], [27.f], [47.g] - “at least one side
`of the transition region contains optical elements…”.
`B. Claim Construction
`The arguments in this Response stand despite Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction and despite the broadest reasonable construction of the terms. This
`
`Preliminary Response does not take a position on claim construction at this point.
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to propose its own construction of any and all claim
`
`terms for which an issue arises in the event the PTAB institutes this IPR.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`Patent Owner notifies the Board that the district court in Innovative Display
`
`Technologies v. Acer, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-522 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (Dkt. No. 101)
`
`(“Claim Construction Order”) (Ex. 2002) has ruled on constructions of terms in this
`
`patent, including entering an agreed construction of “deformities” that Petitioner
`
`adopts in its Petition. (Petition at 7) (Ex. 2002 at 58).
`
`II. GROUND 1 - PRISTASH (Claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15, 27, 29, and 47)
`A. No Disclosure of Element [1.e] - “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”
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “the
`
`pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one of the sides varies along
`
`at least one of the length and width of the panel member and 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….” That
`
`limitation is referenced as “[1.e]” in the Petition. See, e.g., Petition at p. 17.
`
`The Petition does not even discuss this claim element except in its claim chart,
`
`which refers to the embodiments shown in Figures 5 and 6 of Pristash. (Petition at
`
`17-18.) The claim chart also refers to the Escuti Decl. at ¶¶83-85. The Escuti Decl.,
`
`however, provides only conclusory allegations that are deficient for establishing a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`To establish prima facie obviousness, there must be some articulated
`
`reasoning for the modifications proposed by the Petition. “[R]ejections on
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006). An allegation that all aspects of the claimed invention were individually
`
`known in the art is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
`
`without some objective reason to combine the teachings of the references. (Ex parte
`
`Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).)
`
`The Escuti Declaration makes the allegations that Pristash teaches different
`
`types of deformities and deformities on both sides of the panel. The Escuti jumps to
`
`the conclusion that “[g]iven these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand Pristash to disclose that deformities on one side may be of a different
`
`type than deformities disclosed on the other side.” (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶83-85.) Here,
`
`Escuti merely alleges that Pristash disclosed aspects that may be combined to arrive
`
`at the claim element, but Escuti fails to articulate any objective reason to combine
`
`the alleged disclosures of Pristash and thus fails to establish a prima case of
`
`obviousness.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition fails to establish that
`
`Pristash teaches the claim element [1.e]. Accordingly, Ground 1 of the Petition fails
`
`for Claim 1 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`B. No Disclosure of Element [13.e] - “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”
`
`Independent Claim 13 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “the
`
`pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one of the sides varies along
`
`at least one of the length and width of the panel member and 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….” That
`
`limitation is referenced as “[13.e]” in the Petition. See, e.g., Petition at p. 21.
`
`For the same reasons provided in Section II.A, Pristash does not disclose this
`
`claim element or render it obvious. The Petition again merely alleges that Pristash
`
`discloses aspects that may be combined to arrive at the claim element, but the
`
`Petition fails to articulate any objective reason to combine the alleged disclosures of
`
`Pristash and thus fails to establish a prima case of obviousness. (See Escuti Decl. at
`
`¶¶108.)
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons in Section II.A, the Petition fails to
`
`establish that Pristash teaches or renders obvious this claim element. Accordingly,
`
`Ground 1 of the Petition fails for Claim 13 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`C. No Disclosure of Element [13.f] - “the panel member has a transition
`region…”
`
`Independent Claim 13 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “the
`
`panel member has a transition region between the at least one input edge and the
`
`patterns of light extracting deformities to all the light from the at least one light
`
`source to mix and spread.” That limitation is referenced as “[13.f]” in the Petition.
`
`See, e.g., Petition at p. 21.
`
`The Petition alleges that Pristash teaches “a transition device … for converting
`
`light and is positioned between input edge 10 and deformities on panel 2…”
`
`(Petition at p. 13). The claim chart identifies transition device 5 as meeting this
`
`limitation. (Id. at 21.) Both the argument in the Petition and in its chart miss a crucial
`
`point of this limitation: “the panel member has a transition region”. That means that
`
`the transition region must be part of the panel member. Here, the transition device 5
`
`is a separate part from the panel member identified in the Petition, i.e., the transition
`
`device 5 is separate from light emitting panel 2 / waveguide 15. Figure 1 and Figure
`
`7 below (as annotated by the Petitioner, which Patent Owner does not adopt)
`
`illustrate that the transition device 5 is separate from light emitting panel 2 /
`
`waveguide 15.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`
`
`
`Petition at 12 (showing Figs. 1 and 7 from Pristash, annotated by Petitioner). The
`
`Petitioner’s own annotations show that the identified transition region is outside the
`
`of the optical panel member. Pristash’s explicit teaching also shows that the
`
`transition device 5 is separate from the light emitting panel 2: “the light source 3,
`
`transition device 5 and light emitting panel 2 must be designed to fit each other as
`
`well as the particular application. However, it should be understood that the light
`
`source 3, transition device 5 and light emitting panel 2 may also be used separately
`
`if desired.” (Pristash at 3:23-29.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition has not established that
`
`the claimed element of “the panel member has a transition region” is disclosed in
`
`Pristash. Accordingly, Ground 1 fails for Claim 13 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`D. No Disclosure of Element [13.g] - “at least one side of the transition
`region contains optical elements”
`
`Independent Claim 13 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “at
`
`least one side of the transition region contains optical elements for reflecting or
`
`refracting light from the at least one light source.” That limitation is referenced as
`
`“[13.g]” in the Petition. See, e.g., Petition at p. 21.
`
`The Petition alleges that Pristash teaches “a transition device … which can
`
`have lens 141 at input surface 143 …” (Petition at p. 13, emphasis added). But this
`
`allegation is deficient as the Petition entirely disregards the plain claim language of
`
`“optical elements” – in the plural.
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition fails to establish that
`
`Pristash teaches the claimed “optical elements.” Accordingly, Ground 1 of the
`
`Petition fails for Claim 13 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`E. No Disclosure of Element [27.e] - “the panel member has a transition
`region…”
`
`Independent Claim 27 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “the
`
`panel member has a transition region between the at least one input edge and the
`
`patterns of light extracting deformities to all the light from the at least one light
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`source to mix and spread.” That limitation is referenced as “[27.e]” in the Petition.
`
`See, e.g., Petition at p. 25.
`
`For the same reasons provided in Section II.C, Pristash does not disclose this
`
`claim element or render it obvious. Accordingly, Ground 1 fails for Claim 27 and
`
`each of its dependent claims.
`
`F. No Disclosure of Element [27.f] - “at least one side of the transition
`region contains optical elements”
`
`Independent Claim 27 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “at
`
`least one side of the transition region contains optical elements for reflecting or
`
`refracting light from the at least one light source.” That limitation is referenced as
`
`“[27.f]” in the Petition. See, e.g., Petition at p. 25.
`
`For the same reasons provided in Section II.D, Pristash does not disclose this
`
`claim element or render it obvious. Accordingly, Ground 1 of the Petition fails for
`
`Claim 27 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`G. No Disclosure of Element [29.e] - “light extracting deformities on
`or in one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the light
`extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel member”
`
`Independent Claim 29 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “the
`
`pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one of the sides varies along
`
`at least one of the length and width of the panel member and at least some of the
`
`light extracting deformities on or in one of the sides vary in a different way or
`
`manner than the light extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`member….” That limitation is referenced as “[29.e]” in the Petition. See, e.g.,
`
`Petition at p. 26.
`
`The Petition does not even discuss this claim element except in its claim chart,
`
`which refers to the embodiments shown in Figures 5 and 6 of Pristash. (Petition at
`
`p. 26.) The claim chart also refers to the Escuti Decl. at ¶¶141. The Escuti Decl.,
`
`however, provides only conclusory allegations that are deficient for establishing a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`As discussed in II.A, to establish prima facie obviousness, there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning for the modifications proposed by the Petition. An allegation
`
`that all aspects of the claimed invention were individually known in the art is not
`
`sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness without some objective
`
`reason to combine the teachings of the references. Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d
`
`1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993)
`
`The Escuti Decl. makes the allegations that Pristash teaches deformities that
`
`vary in depth, density, and size one sides of the panel, and then jumps to the
`
`conclusion that “[g]iven these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand Pristash to disclose that deformities on one side may vary in a different
`
`way or manner than the light extracting deformities on or in the other side of the
`
`panel member.” (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶141.) Here, Escuti fails to articulate any objective
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`reason to arrive at alleged disclosures of Pristash. The Petition thus fails to establish
`
`a prima case of obviousness.
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition fails to establish that
`
`Pristash teaches the claim element [29.e]. Accordingly, Ground 1 of the Petition fails
`
`for Claim 29 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`H. No Disclosure of Element [47.e] - “light extracting deformities on
`or in one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the light
`extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel member”
`
`Independent Claim 47 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “the
`
`pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one of the sides varies along
`
`at least one of the length and width of the panel member and at least some of the
`
`light extracting deformities on or in one of the sides vary in a different way or
`
`manner than the light extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel
`
`member….” That limitation is referenced as “[47.e]” in the Petition. See, e.g.,
`
`Petition at p. 28.
`
`For the same reasons provided in Section II.G, Pristash does not disclose this
`
`claim element or render it obvious. The Petition thus fails to establish a prima case
`
`of obviousness. Accordingly, Ground 1 of the Petition fails for Claim 47 and each
`
`of its dependent claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`I.
`No Disclosure of Element [47.f] - “the panel member has a transition
`region…”
`
`Independent Claim 47 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “the
`
`panel member has a transition region between the at least one input edge and the
`
`patterns of light extracting deformities to all the light from the at least one light
`
`source to mix and spread.” That limitation is referenced as “[47.f]” in the Petition.
`
`See, e.g., Petition at p. 28.
`
`For the same reasons provided in Section II.C, Pristash does not disclose this
`
`claim element or render it obvious. Accordingly, Ground 1 fails for Claim 47 and
`
`each of its dependent claims.
`
`J. No Disclosure of Element [47.g] - “at least one side of the transition
`region contains optical elements”
`
`Independent Claim 47 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “at
`
`least one side of the transition region contains optical elements for reflecting or
`
`refracting light from the at least one light source.” That limitation is referenced as
`
`“[47.f]” in the Petition. See, e.g., Petition at p. 28.
`
`For the same reasons provided in Section II.D, Pristash does not disclose this
`
`claim element or render it obvious. Accordingly, Ground 1 of the Petition fails for
`
`Claim 47 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`III. GROUND 2 - Ohe (Claims 1, 4, 8, 15 and 29)
`A. No Disclosure of Element [1.e] - “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”
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation: “both
`
`the front and back sides having a pattern of light extracting deformities ... wherein
`
`… 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….” The bolded limitation is referenced as “[1.e]” in the
`
`Petition. See, e.g., Petition at p. 33. The antecedent basis of “the sides” in [1.e] are
`
`the front and back sides recited previously in claim 1. As such, the limitations in
`
`claim element [1.e] apply to the front and back sides of the panel member.
`
`The Petition alleges that various changes or modifications may be provided to
`
`the flat areas 8 and roughened surfaces of Ohe and thus the deformities may be varied
`
`in type or manner. (Petition at p. 30.) These allegations are conclusory and devoid
`
`of analysis.
`
`The claim chart also refers to the Escuti Decl. at ¶¶163-164. The Escuti Decl.
`
`alleges that Ohe teaches forming two sides of the plastic light guide 1 with Die 2 and
`
`Die 3 that have different patterns. (¶¶166-167.) Based on the allegation that Die 3
`
`has a different pattern from Die 2, the Escuti Decl made a deficient allegation that
`
`“one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this … would have created a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`surface with the second type of deformity on the opposite side.” (Escuti Decl. at
`
`¶167.) What is deficient in these allegations is that the Petition fails to show Ohe
`
`teaches using Die 2 and Die 3 to form the front and back sides as required in claim
`
`1. Indeed, Ohe teaches the making of a “combined die for injection molding which
`
`had one surface with a state similar to that of the Die 2 and had the other surface
`
`with a state similar to that of the Die 3….” (Ohe at p. 6, lns 39-40.) Ohe does not
`
`otherwise specify the two surfaces are intended for the front and back sides.
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition fails to establish that Ohe
`
`teaches the claim element [1.e]. Accordingly, Ground 2 of the Petition fails for Claim
`
`1 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`B. No Disclosure of Claim 15
`Independent Claim 15 of the ’370 patent was alleged in the Petition to be
`
`anticipated by Ohe but the Petition entirely omits claim 15 from its discussions and
`
`it claim chart for Ground 2. (Petition at 29.) Given this deficiency of the Petition, the
`
`Petition fails to establish that Ohe teaches every element of claim 15. Accordingly,
`
`Ground 2 of the Petition fails for Claim 15 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`C. No Disclosure of Element [29.e] - “light extracting deformities on or
`in one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the light
`extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel member”
`
`Independent Claim 29 of the ’370 patent recites the following limitation:
`
`“both the front and back sides having a pattern of light extracting deformities ...
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`wherien … at least some of the light extracting deformities on or in one of the
`
`sides vary in a different way or manner than the light extracting deformities on
`
`or in the other side of the panel member….” The bolded limitation is referenced
`
`as “[29.e]” in the Petition. See, e.g., Petition at pp. 36-37. The antecedent basis of
`
`“the sides” in [29.e] are the front and back sides recited previously in claim 29. As
`
`such, the limitations in claim element [29.e] apply to the front and back sides of the
`
`panel member.
`
`For the same reasons discussed in Section II.A, the Petition fails to establish
`
`that Ohe teaches the claim element [29.e]. Accordingly, Ground 2 of the Petition
`
`fails for Claim 1 and each of its dependent claims.
`
`IV. GROUND 4 – Kobayashi in view of Pristash (Claims 13, 15, 27, and 47)
`A. No Disclosure of Element [13.f], [27.e], and [47.f] - “the panel
`member has a transition region…”
`
`Independent Claims 13, 27, and 47 of the ’370 patent all recite that the “panel
`
`member has a transition region.” The Petition admits that Kobayashi does not
`
`disclose this limitation. (Petition at 47 (“A transition region is not explicitly
`
`disclosed in Kobayashi.”).) The Petition relies on the disclosure of Pristash to meet
`
`this limitation. (Id. (“Pristash, however, discloses transition device 5 between the
`
`input edge 10 and disruptions 16.”). However, as discussed above in Section II.C,
`
`the Petition, Pristash does not disclose the claimed transition region. Accordingly,
`
`the combination of Kobayashi and Pristash does not disclose this limitation, and the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`Petition does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that this combination in
`
`Ground 4 will invalidate claims 13, 27, or 47, or any of their dependent claims.
`
`B. No Disclosure of Element [13.g], [27.f], and [47.g] - “at least one side
`of the transition region contains optical elements…”
`
`Independent Claims 13, 27, and 47 of the ’370 patent all recite a limitation
`
`that “at least one side of the transition region contains optical elements…” The
`
`Petition does not allege that Kobayashi discloses this limitation. (Petition at 52, 56,
`
`and 58.) The Petition relies on the disclosure of Pristash to meet this limitation. (Id.)
`
`However, as discussed above in Section II.D, Pristash does not disclose the claimed
`
`plural optical elements. Accordingly, the combination of Kobayashi and Pristash
`
`does not disclose this limitation, and the Petition does not show that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that this combination in Ground 4 will invalidate claims 13,
`
`27, or 47, or any of their dependent claims.
`
`V. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`The Petitioner of this Request is LG Display Co., Ltd. (Petition at 1.). The
`
`Petition also lists LG Display America, Inc. as a real party-in-interest. (Id.). The
`
`Petition, however, omits two other real parties-in-interest: LG Electronics Inc. and
`
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. We know LG Electronics Inc. is a real party-in-interest
`
`because it owns 37.9% of Petitioner and because it has admitted to being a related
`
`party to Petitioner. (See Ex. 2003 at 75 and 109 (Excerpt of LG Electronics
`
`Consolidated Financial Statements, December 31, 2013 and 2012).) We know that
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a real party-in-interest because it is 100% owned by
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. (Id. at 16).
`
`We also know that LG Electronics Inc. is a real party-in-interest because the
`
`same attorneys that filed this IPR request represent LG Electronics Inc. in a lawsuit
`
`that involves this patent: Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed December 31, 2013) (the “Delaware
`
`lawsuit”). In the Delaware lawsuit, Robert G. Pluta has appeared for LG Electronics
`
`Inc. (See Ex. 2004, Docket Report for Delaware Case). Mr. Pluta is also primary
`
`attorney on this Petition. Furthermore, Jamie B. Beaber also represents LG
`
`Electronics Inc. in the Delaware lawsuit (Id.), and he has sought permission to appear
`
`pro hac vice in this IPR proceeding.
`
`These facts show that both LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. are in sufficient control of these proceedings to be considered real parties-in-
`
`interest. Both have the “actual measure of control or opportunity to control that
`
`might reasonably be expected between two formal coparties.” (IPR2013-00609, Zoll
`
`Lifecor Corp. v. Phillips Elec. N. America Corp., Paper No. 15 at p. 11.)
`
`Accordingly, this Petition does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 312(a).
`
`
`
`Unlike a clerical issue such as using the incorrect font in a petition, the effect
`
`of failure to name real parties-in-interest may give rise to arguments that the
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`unnamed parties are free to operate without the estoppel restrictions of 35 U.S.C.
`
`315(e). When the named and unnamed parties are related entities that are each parties
`
`in a co-pending lawsuit involving the same attorneys and asserting the same patent,
`
`the potential tactical advantage gained by failing to comply with the RPI naming
`
`requirement is considerable. In situations like this, the PTAB should decline to
`
`institute IPRs to discourage petitioners from intentionally omitting clear real parties-
`
`in-interest.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`This Preliminary Response shows that the Grounds proposed in the Petition
`
`are not reasonably likely to invalidate the claims of the ’370 patent. For the reasons
`
`contained herein, Patent Owner requests that the PTAB deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,434,370
`Dated: October 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registration No. 58,591
`
`
`
`
`
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`
`
`
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`
`
`
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that document has been served via electronic
`
`mail on October 16, 2014, to Petitioner at following email addresses pursuant to its
`
`consent in its Petition at p. 4: rpluta@mayerbrown.com; bpaul@mayerbrown.com;
`
`astreff@mayerbrown.com;
`
`alam@mayerbrown.com;
`
`and
`
`DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` _______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registration No. 58,591
`
`
`
`
`
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`
`
`
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`
`
`
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket