INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`(USA) INC., SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, and
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00753
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 2669
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
` CASE NO. 2:14-CV-201-JRG
` (LEAD CASE)
`
`§§§§§§§§
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR CO., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court are the opening brief filed by Plaintiffs Innovative Display
`
`Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC (collectively, “Plaintiff”) (Dkt. No. 216),
`
`the response filed by Defendants Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing
`
`Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc., Kia Motors America, Inc., Kia Motors
`
`Corporation, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Nissan Motor
`
`Co., Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.,
`
`Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc.,
`
`Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc., Gulf States Toyota, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`
`Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC, Honda Manufacturing of
`
`Indiana, LLC, Sprint Spectrum L.P., Sprint Solutions, Inc., Boost Mobile, LLC, Virgin Mobile
`
`USA, L.P., BMW of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Volkswagen Group
`
`of America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 221), and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 224).
`
`The Court held a claim construction hearing on April 29, 2015.
`
`- 1 -
`
`IDT_00059
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 56 PageID #: 2670
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 3 
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4
`III. THE PARTIES’ AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................... 9
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUED .............. 10
`A. “continuous side walls” ....................................................................................................... 10 
`B. “transition region” ............................................................................................................... 14 
`C. “an air gap between the film, sheet, plate or substrate and the panel member” .................. 16 
`D. “predetermined” .................................................................................................................. 20 
`E. “well defined optical elements or deformities” and “optical elements or deformities of
`well defined shape” ............................................................................................................. 21 
`F. “pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss” .......................................................... 23 
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUED ...... 26 
`A. “one or more secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive surfaces” . 26 
`B. “in close proximity” ............................................................................................................ 28 
`C. “positioned near,” “positioned near the light emitting surface . . . and air gap between,”
`and “positioning a film near” .............................................................................................. 31 
`D. “optical elements” ............................................................................................................... 34 
`E. “facilitate better mixing of light rays within the cavity or recess” ...................................... 37 
`F. “more in the width direction” .............................................................................................. 39 
`G. “output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component” ........ 44 
`H. “greater cross-sectional width than thickness” ................................................................... 48 
`I. “edge of said panel assembly” .............................................................................................. 48 
`J. “for shining light through said panel member” .................................................................... 50 
`K. “one or more light emitting diodes along said light input surface for receiving light
`from said light emitting diodes and conducting the light from said edge for emission of
`the light from at least one of said sides” ............................................................................. 52 
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 55
`
`- 2 -
`
`IDT_00060
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 56 PageID #: 2671
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patents No. 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”) (collectively, the
`
`“Display Patents”) and United States Patents No. 6,508,563 (“the ’563 Patent”) and 6,886,956
`
`(“the ’956 Patent”) (collectively, the “Auto Patents”).
`
`All of the Display Patents are titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” and “relate to the
`
`field of backlights, which can be used, for example, to illuminate LCDs [(liquid crystal
`
`displays)].” (Dkt. No. 216, at 1). All of the Display Patents claim priority to a common ancestor
`
`patent and bear an earliest priority date of June 27, 1995. The Display Patents, at least for
`
`purposes of the present claim construction proceedings, share a common written description and
`
`figures. The Abstract of the ’194 Patent is generally representative and states:
`
`Light emitting assemblies include at least one light source and at least one film,
`sheet, plate or substrate having optical elements or deformities of well defined
`shape on at least one surface that have reflective or refractive surfaces for
`controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the emitted light. The film,
`sheet, plate or substrate may be positioned near the light emitting surface of a
`light emitting panel member with an air gap therebetween or over a cavity or
`recess in a tray through which light from a light source in the cavity or recess is
`emitted.
`
`Both of the Auto Patents are titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in
`
`Automotive Applications and the Like.” Plaintiff submits that “[t]he Auto Patents generally
`
`relate to exterior auto lights such as taillights and headlights.” (Dkt. No. 216, at 1.) The ’563
`
`Patent bears an earliest priority date of January 16, 1996. The ’956 Patent is a continuation of
`
`the ’563 Patent, and Plaintiff submits that the Auto Patents have “nearly identical written
`
`descriptions.” (Dkt. No. 216, at 1.) The Abstract of the ’563 Patent states:
`
`- 3 -
`
`IDT_00061
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 56 PageID #: 2672
`
`Light emitting panel assemblies include in one form of the invention a light
`emitting panel member made of a transparent resiliently deformable elastomeric
`material that absorbs impact without breakage for use in automotive lighting
`applications of various types. In another form of the invention, a rigid light
`emitting panel member may be used with dome switches for switch area lighting
`or to backlight control buttons/key pads by providing holes or openings in the
`panel member for the control buttons/key pads. Also, a rigid light emitting panel
`member may be used as a structural member, and two or more such light emitting
`panel members may be stacked together and used to light an instrument panel or
`the like. One or more light sources may be mounted within one or more light
`transition areas adjacent one or more light input surfaces of the light emitting
`panel members. Also one or more light sources may be positioned adjacent one
`side of the light emitting panel members for causing light to shine through the
`panel members or through holes in the panel members for performing specified
`lighting functions.
`
`Less than a year ago, the Court construed terms in the Display Patents in Innovative
`
`Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., et al., No. 2:13-CV-522, Dkt. No. 101, 2014 WL
`
`4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) (Payne, J.) (“Acer”),1 objections overruled, Dkt. No. 219
`
`(Dec. 15, 2014) (Gilstrap, J.). Acer also construed terms in United States Patent No. 6,755,547
`
`(“the ’547 Patent”), which is related to the Display Patents but which is not asserted in the
`
`present case. Below, the Court divides the presently disputed terms into terms that the Court
`
`previously construed in Acer and terms that the Court has not previously construed, as Plaintiff
`
`has done in its briefing.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`It is understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right
`
`which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the
`
`protected invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v.
`
`1 Citations to Acer herein are to the slip opinion, which Plaintiff has attached to its opening brief
`as Exhibit I.
`
`- 4 -
`
`IDT_00062
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 5 of 56 PageID #: 2673
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996).
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Id. A patent’s claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part. Id. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of
`
`dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. Id. “One
`
`purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of
`
`the claims.” Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips,
`
`the court set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims. In
`
`particular, the court reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the
`
`- 5 -
`
`IDT_00063
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 56 PageID #: 2674
`
`patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v.
`
`Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To that end, the words
`
`used in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Id. The ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a claim term “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. This principle of patent law flows naturally from the
`
`recognition that inventors are usually persons who are skilled in the field of the invention and
`
`that patents are addressed to, and intended to be read by, others skilled in the particular art. Id.
`
`
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Id. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of “a fully integrated written instrument.” Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as
`
`being the primary basis for construing the claims. Id. at 1314-17. As the Supreme Court stated
`
`long ago, “in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive
`
`portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and
`
`meaning of the language employed in the claims.” Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38 (1878). In
`
`addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier
`
`observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998):
`
`Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and
`intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`IDT_00064
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 56 PageID #: 2675
`
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention
`will be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Consequently, Phillips emphasized the important role the
`
`specification plays in the claim construction process.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history also continues to play an important role in claim interpretation.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because
`
`the file history, however, “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the
`
`applicant,” it may lack the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim
`
`construction proceedings. Id. Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is
`
`relevant to the determination of how the inventor understood the invention and whether the
`
`inventor limited the invention during prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a
`
`patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant
`
`to claim interpretation”).
`
`
`
`Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in
`
`favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en banc court
`
`condemned the suggestion made by Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of “focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent.” Id. at 1321.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`IDT_00065
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 8 of 56 PageID #: 2676
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. Id.
`
`
`
`Phillips does not preclude all uses of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The
`
`court did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow when it considers
`
`disputed claim language. Id. at 1323-25. Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the
`
`appropriate weight to the intrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim construction,
`
`bearing in mind the general rule that the claims measure the scope of the patent grant.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States “read[s] [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014); see Biosig Instruments, Inc. v Nautilus, Inc., ---
`
`F.3d ----, 2015 WL 1883265, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2015). “A determination of claim
`
`indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the
`
`construer of patent claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by
`
`Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. 2120.
`
`
`
`In general, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-suit are
`
`“entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals of stare decisis and the goals
`
`articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, even though stare decisis may not be applicable
`
`per se.” Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779,
`
`at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) (Davis, J.); see TQP Development, LLC v. Inuit Inc., No. 2:12-
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`IDT_00066
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 9 of 56 PageID #: 2677
`
`CV-180, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J.) (“[P]revious claim
`
`constructions in cases involving the same patent are entitled to substantial weight, and the Court
`
`has determined that it will not depart from those constructions absent a strong reason for doing
`
`so.”); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 839-40 (2015) (“prior
`
`cases will sometimes be binding because of issue preclusion and sometimes will serve as
`
`persuasive authority”) (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`The Court nonetheless conducts an independent evaluation during claim construction
`
`proceedings. See, e.g., Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Techs. Corp., 182 F. Supp. 2d 580,
`
`589-90 (E.D. Tex. 2002); Burns, Morris & Stewart Ltd. P’ship v. Masonite Int’l Corp., 401 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 692, 697 (E.D. Tex. 2005); Negotiated Data Solutions, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:11-
`
`CV-390, 2012 WL 6494240, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2012).
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`The Parties have agreed to the following constructions:
`
`Term
`
`
`“deformities”
`
`(’194 Patent, Claims 1, 16, 28, 31;
`’660 Patent, Claims 1, 33;
`’974 Patent, Claims 1, 7, 13;
`’370 Patent, Claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 29, 47;
`’816 Patent, Claim 1;
`’177 Patent, Claim 14)
`
`“vary randomly”
`
`(’177 Patent, Claim 26;
`’370 Patent, Claim 37)
`
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“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 emitted”
`
`
`Plain meaning
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`IDT_00067
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 56 PageID #: 2678
`
`Plain meaning
`
`Plain meaning
`
`“a pattern of deformities, including, but not
`limited to, a random placement pattern or a
`variable pattern”
`
`“a pattern of deformities, including, but not
`limited to, a random placement pattern or a
`variable pattern”
`
`
`“a pattern of individual optical elements
`including, but not limited to, a random
`placement pattern or a variable pattern”
`
`
`“posts, tabs, or other structural features that
`provide a mount”
`
`(’974 Patent, Claims 1, 7)
`
`“transreflector”
`
`(’563 Patent, Claim 9)
`
`“pattern of deformities”
`
`(’660 Patent, Claims 1, 33)
`
`“pattern of light extracting deformities”
`
`(’974 Patent, Claims 1, 7, 13;
`’370 Patent, Claims 1, 13, 29, 47;
`’816 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`“pattern of individual optical elements”
`
`(’196 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 202, 2/20/2015 P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, at 3-4;
`
`Dkt. No. 228, 4/15/2015 P.R. 4-5 Joint Claim Construction Chart, at 3-4.)
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUED
`
`A. “continuous side walls”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plain meaning
`
`(Dkt. No. 216, at 2; Dkt. No. 221, at 20-21.) The parties submit that this disputed term appears
`
`“side walls free of discontinuities”
`
`in Claims 1 and 15 of the ’177 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposal should be rejected for the same reasons the
`
`Court rejected the proposal of “free of breaks” in Acer. (Dkt. No. 216, at 2.)
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`IDT_00068
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 11 of 56 PageID #: 2679
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that what is shown in Figure 6 “is the only tray depicted,” and
`
`Defendants cite prosecution history involving the “Kitizawa” reference that was addressed in
`
`Acer. (Dkt. No. 221, at 21-22; see Acer at 15-16.)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “Defendants’ ‘free of discontinuities’ construction is essentially the
`
`same one the Court already rejected [in Acer] (‘free of breaks’).” (Dkt. No. 224, at 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Defendants urge:
`
`[T]he applicant amended claims 1 and 15 to further limit the tray to one “having a
`back wall and continuous side walls that forms form a hollow cavity or recess
`completely surrounded by the side walls.” [(Dkt. No. 221,] Ex. 16, IDT0000278-
`287. And, the applicant argued, inter alia, that “the so-called tray 12 of Kitazawa
`does not have a back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or
`recess completely surrounded by the side walls. . . .” Id. The applicant, thus,
`relied on the continuous side walls disclosed in Figure 6 of the specification, side
`walls free of discontinuities, to distinguish over the prior art.
`
`(Dkt. No. 221, at 21 (additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough, as in original; italics
`
`omitted).)
`
`
`
`In Acer, the defendants proposed construing this disputed term to mean “uninterrupted
`
`walls that are free of breaks on the side of the tray.” The Court found:
`
`As for the prosecution history, the patentee added the term “continuous side
`walls,” as well as the phrase “completely surrounded by the side walls,” in
`response to a rejection based on United States Patent No. 5,070,431 (“Kitazawa”).
`See [No. 2:13-CV-522,] Dkt. No. 75, Ex. H, 1/22/2008 Reply to Office Action of
`October 3, 2007, at 2 (p. 56 of 94 of Ex. H). The patentee stated: “[I]t is
`respectfully submitted that the so-called tray 12 of Kitazawa does not have a back
`wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or recess completely
`surrounded by the side walls in which at least one light source is located, mounted
`or positioned as recited in claims 1 and 16 as amended.” Id. at 8 (p. 62 of 94 of
`Ex. H). Figure 2 of Kitazawa is reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`IDT_00069
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 12 of 56 PageID #: 2680
`
`
`
`
`Because the “light guide plate 12” of Kitazawa (see Kitazawa at 2:27-3:45)
`includes “recesses 12a and 12b” (see id. at 3:15-20) that are illustrated as being
`completely open-ended, the patentee’s statements distinguishing Kitazawa cannot
`be fairly read as requiring that “continuous” side walls must be uninterrupted, as
`Defendants here propose. See Omega Eng’g v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314,
`1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“As a basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution
`disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic 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).
`
`Acer at 15-16. Defendants have not justified departing from this finding in Acer. (See Dkt.
`
`No. 221, at 21.) Indeed, the above-discussed “light guide plate 12” of Kitazawa, which the
`
`patentee referred to as a “so-called tray,” was apparently not a tray at all. See Acer at 15-16.
`
`Acer construed the term “continuous side walls” to have its plain meaning. Id. at 17.
`
`
`
`Finally, Defendants rely on Figure 6 of the ’177 Patent as illustrating side walls that are
`
`free of discontinuities. Figure 6 is reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`IDT_00070
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 13 of 56 PageID #: 2681
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ reliance on the illustration in Figure 6 is rejected as importing a limitation
`
`from a particular disclosed embodiment. See MBO Labs. Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474
`
`F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[P]atent coverage is not necessarily limited to inventions that
`
`look like the ones in the figures. To hold otherwise would be to import limitations [i]nto the
`
`claim[s] from the specification, which is fraught with danger.”).
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is therefore hereby expressly rejected, and no further
`
`construction is necessary. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical
`
`scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use
`
`in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.”); see also
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a
`
`patent’s asserted claims.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) (“Unlike O2 Micro, where the court failed to resolve the parties’ quarrel, the district
`
`court rejected Defendants’ construction.”).
`
`
`
`The Court accordingly hereby construes “continuous side walls” to have its plain
`
`meaning.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`IDT_00071
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 14 of 56 PageID #: 2682
`
`B. “transition region”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“a region configured to transmit light”
`
`“an area used to make the transition from the
`light source to the light emitting area of the
`panel member [’370] / optical conductor
`[’660]”2
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 216, at 2; Dkt. No. 221, at 22 (square brackets Defendants’).) The parties submit that
`
`this disputed term appears in Claims 1, 3, 10, and 33 of the ’660 Patent and Claims 13 and 47 of
`
`the ’370 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposal would improperly limit the disputed term to a
`
`particular embodiment in a manner that the Court rejected in Acer. (Dkt. No. 216, at 3.)
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that they propose the construction proposed by Plaintiff in Acer.
`
`(Dkt. No. 221, at 22.) Defendants urge that the “transition region” is “the area after the light
`
`source but before the light emitting region,” and “[t]he specifications of both patents confirm that
`
`the transition region receives light from the light source and transmits that light to the light
`
`emitting portion.” (Id., at 23.) Defendants conclude:
`
`The Court should not adopt the Acer construction—“region configured to transmit
`light”—because it is overbroad and omits the structure and function implicit in the
`term. The prior construction encompasses any region in the light emitting
`assembly configured to transmit light, which is so broad it could encompass the
`light source and the light emitting portion of the light guide. Defendants’
`construction appropriately differentiates between the light source, the transition
`region, and the light emitting portion according to the patent’s disclosure.
`
`
`
`2 The word “used” appears in Defendants’ proposal in the parties’ February 20, 2015 P.R. 4-3
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 200, at 9) and in the parties’
`April 15, 2015 P.R. 4-5 Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 228, at 4) but does not appear
`in Defendants’ proposal in their response brief (Dkt. No. 221, at 22).
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IDT_00072
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 15 of 56 PageID #: 2683
`
`(Id., at 24.) Defendants have also submitted expert opinion. (See id., Ex. 3, 3/3/2015 Gillespie
`
`Decl., at ¶ 48 (“Since light from the source is often emitted over a broad range of angles, it is
`
`necessary to constrain the light for injection into the light guide’s emission zone. The region
`
`where this takes place is typically termed the entry zone or, in the Display Patents and [Auto]
`
`Patents, the ‘transition area.’”).)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “the claim limitations themselves demark the transition region from
`
`the light source and light emitting area, by claiming them all as separate limitations.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 224, at 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`In Acer, the Court rejected the defendants’ proposal to require that a “transition region” is
`
`“a region that spreads and transmits light.” See Acer at 18-22 (emphasis added). The Court in
`
`Acer nonetheless did not adopt Plaintiff’s proposal of plain meaning or Plaintiff’s alternative
`
`proposed construction (which is the construction proposed here by Defendants). See id. Instead,
`
`the Court arrived at a construction based upon a review of the specification. See id. (citing ’547
`
`Patent at 2:62-3:7 & 7:13-31). The Court construed this disputed term to mean “a region
`
`configured to transmit light” (Acer at 22), and Plaintiff proposes that the Court adopt the Acer
`
`construction in the present case.
`
`
`
`The Summary of the Invention of the ’660 Patent states:
`
`Referring now in detail to the drawings, and initially to FIG. 1, there is
`schematically shown . . . a light transition member or area 4 used to make the
`transition from the light source 3 to the light emitting panel 2, as well known in
`the art.
`
`’660 Patent at 2:59-66 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Figures 10 and 11 of the ’370 Patent and the ’660 Patent purportedly show a transition
`
`area 63 that transmits light to a light output area 62. See ’660 Patent at 7:55-8:5. Defendants
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IDT_00073
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 16 of 56 PageID #: 2684
`
`also submit that Figure 3 of the ’370 Patent and the ’660 Patent shows that transition areas 12
`
`emit light “into the light input surface 19 of the light emitting panel 14.” ’660 Patent at 3:39-50.
`
`
`
`The thrust of Defendants’ argument thus appears to be that a “transition region” must be
`
`distinct from both a light source and a light emitting area. Defendants have failed to justify
`
`limiting the disputed term to particular illustrations. See MBO Labs., 474 F.3d at 1333 (“[P]atent
`
`coverage is not necessarily limited to inventions that look like the ones in the figu