Paper No. 12
` Entered: March 2, 2015
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent No. 7,914,196
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 1 of 17
`
`
` Entered: March 2, 2015
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent No. 7,914,196
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,914,196 (“the ’196 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Delaware
`Display Group LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper
`9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the
`Petition as to all challenges.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ196 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ196 patent is entitled “Light Redirecting Film Systems Having
`Pattern of Variable Optical Elements.” The Abstract describes the subject
`matter as follows:
`Light redirecting film systems comprise a backlight
`having deformities that cause a majority of the light entering
`the input edge of the backlight to be emitted from a light output
`surface of the backlight. In close proximity to the light output
`surface is a light redirecting film that has a pattern of individual
`optical elements of well-defined shape to redistribute the light
`emitted by the light output surface toward a direction normal to
`the film.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added).
`
`The invention of the ʼ196 patent is further described in the Summary
`of Invention:
`The present invention relates to light redirecting films and light
`redirecting film systems that redistribute more of the light
`emitted by a backlight or other light source toward a direction
`more normal to the plane of the films, and to light redirecting
`
`
`
`2
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`films that produce a softer image without the brightness
`decrease associated with films that have a matte or diffuse
`finish on the light entrance surface of the films, for increased
`effectiveness.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 44–51 (emphasis added).
`
`Figure 2 of the ʼ196 patent follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows backlight BL, light redirecting film 2, and optical elements 5
`on light redirecting surface 6 of the film. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 20–35, 62–67.
`The Figure shows rays R being directed by deformities 50 to the surface of
`the backlight BL, where they are redirected by optical elements 5 to be
`normal to the film surface 6. As further described in the ʼ196 patent, “the
`backlight BL itself may be designed to emit more of the light rays at lower
`
`
`
`3
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`angles to increase the amount of light emitted by the backlight and rely on
`the light redirecting film to redistribute more of the emitted light within a
`desired viewing angle.” Id. col. 7, ll. 33–37 (emphasis added).
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A light redirecting film system comprising
`
`a backlight including at least one input edge for receiving
`light from a light source, and at least one light output surface
`for emitting light,
`
`the backlight having deformities that cause most of the
`light entering the input edge to be emitted from the light output
`surface at relatively low angles, and
`
`a light redirecting film in close proximity to the light
`output surface for receiving light emitted from the light output
`surface,
`
`the light redirecting film having a pattern of individual
`optical elements of well-defined shape that vary at different
`locations on the film to redistribute the light emitted from the
`light output surface toward a direction normal to the film.
`
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement by Petitioner of
`the ʼ196 patent in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group LLC
`et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed Dec.
`31, 2013). Paper 6. Patent Owner identifies numerous other proceedings in
`which it has alleged infringement of the ʼ196 patent. See Paper 6 for a
`listing.
`In addition, there are three pending inter partes reviews for patents
`related to the ’196 patent. Those are as follows:
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`1. IPR2014-01096 (U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370);
`2. IPR2014-01097 (U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194); and
`3. IPR2014-01357 (U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547).
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`1. “deformities”
`The only claim term for which Petitioner proposes a construction is
`the term “deformities,” appearing in all challenged claims. Pet. 7–8.
`Petitioner asserts that the ʼ196 patent “expressly defines” the term to mean
`“any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or
`surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted from the
`backlight.” Id. (citing ʼ196 patent, Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 44–48). Patent
`Owner opposes the inclusion of the term “from the backlight” at the end of
`the proposed construction as “unsupported in the intrinsic record.” Prelim.
`Resp. 3. We have considered Petitioner’s construction of “deformities” and
`agree that the term “from the backlight” should be included, as it appears in
`the specification at col. 9, lines 47–48.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`
`
`
`2. “the backlight having deformities that cause the light entering the
`input edge to be emitted from the light surface at relatively low
`angles”
`
`This limitation appears in challenged claims 1–21. Although not
`construed by either party, we conclude that to evaluate Petitioner’s
`challenges, it is necessary to determine the meaning of this limitation.
`First, we determine the meaning of “light surface.” Petitioner does
`not propose a construction or specifically address the issue. In at least one
`instance, however, the Petition suggests that the “light surface” is the surface
`of the deformities. Pet. 6 (“The ʼ196 patent purports to achieve the alleged
`improvements by providing a backlight having deformities that cause the
`light to be emitted at relatively low angles.”)(citing claim 1).
`We are not persuaded that this analysis is correct. The claims
`themselves, Figure 2, as well as the discussion of “lower angles” in the
`specification indicate that the “light surface” is the upper surface of the
`backlight BL. See discussion supra.
`
`Next, we attempt to determine the meaning of the claim term
`“relatively low angles.” Petitioner does not provide a proposed construction
`of this term. Nor does Petitioner point to anything in the specification that
`would provide guidance to a person of ordinary skill. Figure 2 shows light
`rays R being emitted from the upper surface of backlight BL at various
`angles. See supra. The specification mentions “the backlight BL itself may
`be designed to emit more of the light rays at lower angles.” Ex. 1001, col. 7,
`ll. 33–35 (emphasis added). But no numerical values or other guides for
`determining these angles are presented are presented in the specification.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`While it is permissible to use terms of degree (e.g., “relatively low”)
`
`in patent claims, the patent specification must provide a standard for
`measuring that degree. United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S.
`228, 236 (1942); Ex Parte Lazzara, Appeal 2007-0192, 2007 WL 5963473
`(BPAI Nov. 13, 2007)(informative).
`
`Petitioner has the burden of showing in the Petition “[h]ow the
`challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3). We
`determine that Petitioner has not met this requirement. Petitioner has not
`identified anything in the specification that provides adequate guidance to
`determine the meaning of “relatively low.”
`
`In addition, the Petition must show “[h]ow the construed claim is
`unpatentable under the statutory grounds.” Id. § 42.204(b)(4). For the
`reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not met this additional
`burden.
`We have further determined that, except as may be indicated in the
`discussion below, the remaining terms should be given their plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`E. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references1:
`US 5,808,784
`Sept. 5, 1995
`US 5,797,668
`Aug. 25, 1998
`US 5,982,540
`Mar. 13, 1995
`US 5,838,403
`Nov. 17, 1998
`US 5,769,522
`Jun. 23, 1998
`GB 2 281 802
`Mar. 15, 1995
`
`Ando
`Kojima
`Koike
`Jannson
`Kaneko
`Hattersley
`
`
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`
`1 The references are ordered by exhibit number with effective dates asserted
`by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`Petitioner also states that it is relying on Admitted Prior Art (“APA”)
`from the ʼ196 patent specification. Pet. 8; Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 30–40.
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti
`Decl.”). Ex. 1004.
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–25 of the ʼ196 patent on the following
`
`grounds.
`
`
`References
`
`Kojima
`Koike
`Ando and Jannson
`Koike and Kaneko
`Koike and Hattersley
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–3, 5, 10, 18, 19
`22, 23
`1–21
`1–3, 5, 7–13, 19, 21
`24, 25
`
`Basis
`§ 102(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`We first address Patent Owner’s contention that the Petition should be
`denied because Petitioner has failed to name two real parties-in-interest.
`Prelim. Resp. 11. They are LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A.
`Inc. Id.
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response fails to provide convincing
`evidence that LG Electronics Inc. is a real party-in-interest. According to
`Patent Owner, “[w]e 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.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. As
`the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14,
`
`
`
`8
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`2014), makes clear, and as Patent Owner acknowledges (Prelim. Resp. 12),
`an important factor in determining real party in interest is control or the
`ability to control the proceeding. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elect. North
`America Corp, IPR2013-00609 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014), Paper 15, slip op. at
`10. In Zoll, the Board relied on the fact that the party determined to be a real
`party-in-interest (Zoll Medical) controlled 100 % of the petitioner (Zoll
`Lifecor). Here, LG Electronics Inc. is not even a majority owner of
`Petitioner. And the fact that the attorneys representing Petitioner here also
`represent LG Electronics Inc. in a district court lawsuit involving the ʼ196
`patent, without more, is insufficient evidence of control of this proceeding
`by LG Electronics.
`Patent Owner also fails to provide convincing evidence that LG
`Electronics U.S.A. Inc. is a real party-in-interest. Patent Owner’s sole
`argument states “[w]e know that LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a real party-
`in-interest because it is 100 % owned by LG Electronics, Inc.” Prelim.
`Resp. 11–12. But Patent Owner has not provided sufficient proof that LG
`Electronics Inc. is a real party-in-interest. See supra. Therefore, Patent
`Owner’s contention that LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. also is a real party-in-
`interest simply because it is “100% owned by LG Electronics, Inc.” is not
`persuasive.
`We therefore determine that, on this record, the Petition should not be
`denied on this ground.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds Based On Kojima (Claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18, 19)
`Petitioner contends that these claims are anticipated by Kojima under
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 11. For the reasons that follow, we do not institute
`a review based on this challenge.
`
`Kojima describes a surface illuminant device used as a backlight for a
`transmission liquid crystal display. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 4–6. The device
`includes a light conduction or guide plate, a linear light source, a lens film, a
`light diffusing film, and a light reflecting member disposed behind the guide
`plate. Id. col. 2, ll. 43–49. This is illustrated by Figure 1 of Kojima
`reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 1 above, lens film 1 provided with a plurality of triangular prisms
`2, light guide plate 3, “imaginary” exit surface p1 of lens film 1, and exit
`surface p2 of light guide plate 3 are shown. Ex. 1007, col 2, l. 66–col. 3,
`l. 14. The figure also shows peak exit angle θ1, defined as “an angle at which
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`a direction in which most light rays outgoing from the exit surface p2 of the
`light guide plate 3 toward the entrance surface 1b of the lens film 1 travel is
`inclined to a normal to the exit surface p2 of the light guide plate 3.” Id.
`col. 3, ll. 14–19. Kojima describes using a peak exit angle θ1 of 28°. Id. col.
`5, l. 65–col. 6, l. 12.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18, and 19 of the ʼ196
`patent in relation to Kojima appears at pages 11–20 of the Petition.
`As noted supra, Petitioner has not offered any construction of the term
`
`“relatively low” appearing in these claims, nor is the specification adequate
`to make that determination. Therefore, we are not able to evaluate
`Petitioner’s argument for unpatentability based on Kojima.
`
`Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s analysis
`adequately demonstrates that “most of the light” entering the input edge is
`emitted a relatively low angle. We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument that, at best, Kojima describes that most of the emitted light rays
`exit at the peak angle θ1. The claims, however, refer to the entering light
`rays. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`
` For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18,
`and 19 of the ʼ196 patent over Kojima.
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds Based On Koike and Kaneko
`(Claims 1–3, 5, 7–13, 19, 21)
`Koike describes a surface light source device with a polarization
`
`function for backlighting a liquid crystal display. Ex. 1008, col. 2, ll. 16–18.
`Figure 4 of Koike follows:
`
`
`
`11
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows fluorescent lamp L, reflector R, light flux parallelizer 1, light
`incident surface 2, light exit surface 3, polarization plate 8, air layer 9, light
`direction modifier 10, and light exit surface 11. Ex. 1008, col. 10, l. 32–col.
`11, l. 5. Petitioner’s analysis of Koike and Kaneko in relation to these
`claims of the ʼ196 patent appears at pages 43–55 of the Petition.
`
`To meet the “relatively low angles” limitation of these claims,
`Petitioner relies on Figure 5 of Koike, showing light rays exiting the light
`flux parallelizer at an angle of 65° from the normal. Pet. 46 (claim chart).
`
`For the reasons previously stated, Petitioner has not offered any
`construction of the term “relatively low” appearing in these claims, nor has
`Petitioner identified any description in specification that would be adequate
`to provide a standard for measuring the degree. Therefore, we are not able
`to evaluate Petitioner’s argument for unpatentability based on Koike.
`Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s analysis adequately
`demonstrates that “most of the light” entering the input edge is emitted a
`
`
`
`12
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`relatively low angle. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not
`shown that Koike teaches this. Prelim. Resp. 9–10.
`
`Petitioner relies on Kaneko only as to other limitations of the claims.
`Therefore, Kaneko does not affect our analysis and will not be discussed
`further.
`
`For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 7–13,
`18, 19, and 21 of the ʼ196 patent over Koike and Kaneko.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based On Ando and Jannson (Claims 1–21)
`Ando assertedly is directed to a lens array sheet that can effectively
`
`use light energy of the light source, maintain the light condensing effect,
`prevent the luminance from deteriorating, homogeneously distribute the
`luminance on the light emitting surface, and prevent equal-thickness
`interference fringes and wasteful light dispersion out of the angle of visual
`angle from taking place. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 54–57.
`
`Jannson is directed to a liquid crystal display system having a
`collimated back light and a diffuser. The effect is to project light through a
`liquid crystal display. Ex. 1009, col 2, l. 66–col. 3, l. 2.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`
`Figure 12 of Jannson follows:
`
`
`Figure 12 of Jannson shows a ray diagram with the rays emerging from a
`waveguide at various angles. Ex. 1009, col. 22, ll. 27–36.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 1–21 of the ʼ196 patent in relation to
`Ando and Jannson appears at pages 26–43 of the Petition. Petitioner relies
`on Jannnson to meet the “relatively low” requirement of these claims.
`Pet. 29 (claim chart). As noted supra, however, Petitioner has not provided
`a claim construction for the “relatively low” requirement, nor has Petitioner
`identified any description in specification that would be adequate to provide
`a standard for measuring the degree. Therefore, we are not able to evaluate
`Petitioner’s argument for unpatentability based on Koike.
`
`Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s analysis
`adequately demonstrates that “most of the light” entering the input edge is
`emitted a relatively low angle. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner
`has not shown that Jannson meets this limitation. Prelim. Resp. 8–9.
`
`Petitioner does not rely on Ando to teach this limitation of the claims.
`Therefore, Ando does not affect our analysis and will not be considered
`further.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1–21 of the
`ʼ196 patent over Ando and Jannson.
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds Based on Koike (Claims 22, 23) and
`Koike and Hattersley (Claims 24, 25)
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 22 and 23 of the ʼ196 patent in relation
`
`to Koike appears at pages 20–26 of the Petition. Petitioner’s analysis of
`claims 24 and 25 of the ʼ196 patent in relation to Koike and Hattersley
`appears at pages 56–59 of the Petition.
`These claims include the following limitation:
`
`the backlight having individual optical deformities of well-
`defined shape for causing 60 to 70% or more of the light
`received through the input edge to be reflected or refracted out
`of the light output surface
`
`
`To meet this requirement, Petitioner relies on the discussion in Koike of the
`composition and other characteristics of the light flux parallelizer discussed
`supra. Pet. 23–24 (claim charts). Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s
`analysis fails to show that 60–70% more of the light received “through the
`input edge” is “refracted out of the light output surface.” Prelim. Resp. 7.
`Patent Owner contends that the transmissivity percentages cited in Koike
`apply only to light rays where the incident angle is lower than the critical
`angle by 5° to 10° or more. Id. (citing Ex. 1008, col. 7, ll. 1–5). Patent
`Owner contends that the Petition does not show how much of the light
`received through the input end of Koike’s device meets this condition. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has failed to
`demonstrate that Koike meets this element of the claims.
`
`For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 22 or 23 of the
`ʼ196 patent over Koike or claims 24 or 24 of the 196 patent over Koike and
`Hammersley.
`
`III. SUMMARY
`The information presented in the Petition does not show there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on any of the following
`challenges to patentability of the ʼ196 patent:
`A. Anticipation of claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18, and 19 by Kojima;
`B. Obviousness of claims 1–3, 5, 7–13, 18, 19, and 21 over
`Koike and Kaneko;
`C. Obviousness of claim 1–21 over Ando and Jannson;
`D. Obviousness of claims 22 and 23 over Koike; and
`E. Obviousness of claims 24 and 25 over Koike and Hattersley.
`.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda K. Streff
`Baldine B. Paul
`Anita Y. Lam
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Justin B. Kimble
`BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 17 of 17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
