`
`Trials@uspto.gov
` Date Entered: April 6, 2017
`571-272-7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00551
`Patent 7,915,631B2
`Case IPR2017-00552
`Patent 7,901,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-00556
`Patent 7,855,092 B2
`Case IPR2017-00558
`Patent 8,309,375 B21
`____________
`
`
`
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. We exercise
`our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00551; IPR2017-00552; IPR2017-00556; 2017-00558
`Patent 7,915,631B2; 7,901,959 B2; 7,855,092 B2; 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`Vizio, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review in each of
`the proceedings identified in the caption of this paper (“the Subject Proceedings”).
`Each Petition was accorded a filing date of December 30, 2016. In the Petition
`filed in IPR2017-00551 (’551 Pet.), Petitioner acknowledged that the claims of
`U.S. Patent 7,915,631 B2 (the ’631 Patent) “will likely expire during the requested
`IPR” and states “to the extent there may be differences here Petitioner construes
`the ’631 claims under both the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) for
`purposes of institution and under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) for purposes of this review.” ’551 Pet. 14. Petitioner made the
`same statement in IPR2017-00552 (’552 Pet.) concerning the claims of U.S. Patent
`7,010,959 B2 (’552 Pet. 13), in the Petition in IPR2017-00556 (’556 Pet.)
`concerning the claims of U.S. Patent 7,855,092 (’556 Pet. 32), and in the Petition
`in IPR2017-00558 (’558 Pet.) concerning the claims of U.S. Patent 8,309,375 B2
`(’558 Pet. 24–25). “For purposes of this review” Petitioner proposed claim
`constructions for “electrode” and “main emission peak” in IPR2017-00551. ’551
`Pet. 14. Each of the remaining Petitions states that for purposes of this review
`Petitioner interprets all terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning
`consistent with the corresponding specification. ’552 Pet. 13, ’556 Pet. 32, ’558
`Pet. 25.
`On January 30, 2017 Nichia Corporation (“Patent Owner”) timely filed and
`served Patent Owner’s Motion and Certification Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`Requesting Expired Patent Claim Construction (“Motion”) requesting that we
`apply a district court-type claim construction in each of the Subject Proceedings.
`In each Motion, Patent Owner certified that the corresponding patent in the Subject
`Proceeding would expire within 18 months of the entry of the Notice of Filing
`Date.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00551; IPR2017-00552; IPR2017-00556; 2017-00558
`Patent 7,915,631B2; 7,901,959 B2; 7,855,092 B2; 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`On March 31, 2017, Patent Owner contacted the Board via e-mail to request
`a conference to seek permission to file a notice confirming that its Motion in each
`of the subject Proceedings is unopposed. Patent Owner’s e-mail request states that
`Petitioner’s counsel “has indicated Petitioner opposes this request for a conference
`call and the filing of any notices.” A conference call is not required. The default
`time for opposing a motion is one month after service of the motion. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.25(a)(1). Petitioner has not opposed Patent Owner’s Motions in the Subject
`Proceedings. Patent Owner’s Motions comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`§ 41.100(b) and we find that the requested relief is warranted. Thus, we will apply
`a district court-type claim construction in each of the Subject Proceedings.
`In consideration of the above it is
`ORDERED that a district type claim construction will be applied in each of
`the Subject Proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00551; IPR2017-00552; IPR2017-00556; 2017-00558
`Patent 7,915,631B2; 7,901,959 B2; 7,855,092 B2; 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Jordan M. Rossen
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`jordan.rossen@ropesgray.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Catherine Nyarady
`David E. Cole
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`cnyarady@paulweiss.com
`dcole@paulweiss.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`