UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TCL MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LTD.
`and
`TTE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because It Does Not Identify All
`Real-Parties-in-Interest. ................................................................................... 2
`A. VIZIO is an unidentified real-party-in-interest. .................................... 2
`B.
`TTEC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest. ..................................... 5
`C.
`TCLC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest. ..................................... 7
`III. The Board Should Deny Institution Under §325(d) and §314(a). ................... 9
`A.
`The Office previously considered the same or substantially the
`same references and arguments. ............................................................ 9
`The General Plastic factors favor denying institution. .......................11
`B.
`IV. Technical Background ...................................................................................14
`A. Nichia develops the blue LED. ...........................................................15
`B.
`Researchers pursue the white LED using a 3-LED red-green-
`blue approach. .....................................................................................16
`Nichia discards the 3-LED approach. .................................................18
`C.
`D. Nichia uses phosphors with LEDs. .....................................................18
`E.
`Nichia develops a sheet-like white-light source using a blue
`LED and phosphors. ............................................................................20
`Nichia develops a white LED..............................................................23
`Petitioners’ asserted history of YAG confirms that Nichia’s use
`of it in an LED was a breakthrough. ...................................................26
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because Petitioners Fail to Present the
`Required Graham Analysis. ..........................................................................29
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................32
`VII. Grounds 2 and 4 Should Be Denied Because They Rely on the Non-
`Analogous Pinnow Reference. ......................................................................32
`Cree is irrelevant to whether Pinnow is analogous art. .......................34
`A.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Pinnow is not in the same field of endeavor as the ’631. ....................36
`Pinnow is not reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by the
`’631 inventors. .....................................................................................43
`D. Nichia’s inclusion of Pinnow on an IDS is irrelevant. ........................46
`VIII. The Petition Should Be Denied Because All Grounds Erroneously
`Rely on Matoba as Disclosing the “Concentration of Phosphor”
`Limitation. .....................................................................................................46
`A.
`Petitioners incorrectly construe “transparent material” in an
`attempt to satisfy the “concentration of phosphor” limitation. ...........47
`B. Matoba does not disclose the “concentration of phosphor”
`limitation. ............................................................................................52
`IX. The Petition Should Be Denied Because All Grounds Erroneously
`Rely on Baretz or Matoba as Disclosing the “Phosphor Diffuses”
`Limitation. .....................................................................................................56
`A.
`Petitioners incorrectly construe “diffuses” in an attempt to
`satisfy the “phosphor diffuses” limitation. ..........................................57
`Baretz does not disclose the “phosphor diffuses” limitation
`(Grounds 1-3). .....................................................................................61
`C. Matoba does not disclose the “phosphor diffuses” limitation
`(Ground 4). ..........................................................................................65
`Petitioners Have Not Demonstrated the Required Nexus for Osram’s
`Supposed “Simultaneous Invention.” ............................................................66
`XI. Petitioners’ Collateral Estoppel Argument Is Baseless. ................................66
`XII. The Pending Oil States Decision ...................................................................68
`XIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................68
`
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 46
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC,
`856 F.3d 883 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 66
`
`Alarm.com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01124, Pap. 11 (Dec. 5, 2016) ............................................................. 12
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Appistry, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00480, Pap. 18 (July 13, 2015) ......................................................... 4, 7
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,
`872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Atl. Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Pap. 88 (Jan. 6, 2015) ............................................................ 6, 7
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 32, 36
`
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) ............................................................................................ 67
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................... 43, 44
`
`Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.,
`467 U.S. 752 (1984) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Cree, Inc.,
`818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 10, 34, 35, 36
`
`Ex Parte Cree, Inc.,
`Appeal 2014-007890 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2014) .................................................... 34
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`In re Deminiski,
`796 F.2d 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Pap. 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) .......................................... 11, 12, 13, 14
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................................... 1, 29, 31
`
`Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc.,
`61 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 17
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Pap. 13 (Sept. 6, 2017) .............................................................. 9
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 BV,
`IPR2017-01318, Pap. 12 (Nov. 8, 2017) ............................................................ 12
`
`Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01305, Pap. 11 (Oct. 17, 2017) ............................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Pap. 36 (Jan. 9, 2013) ........................................................... 67
`
`Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co.,
`IPR2014-00367, Pap. 62 (May 26, 2015) ........................................................... 44
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01030, Pap. 28 (Nov. 30, 2015) .................................................... 50, 60
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Pap. 10 (Dec. 14, 2016) ............................................................. 9
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 42
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`In re Wood,
`599 F.2d 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1979) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................... 5, 9, 12, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .............................................................................................. 2, 4, 7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................................ 5, 9, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................................................................................................. 7, 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ................................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756-48,773 ................................................ 3, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2004
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO,
`Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.) (Dkt. #1)
`(without exhibits)
`
`Proof of Service, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-
`cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.) (Dkt. #16)
`
`Complaint, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Technology
`Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.)
`(Dkt. #1) (without exhibits)
`
`Summons and Proof of Service, Nichia Corp. v. TCL
`Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-
`cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #7)
`
`EX2005 Defendants’ Objections and Responses to Nichia
`Corporation’s First Set of Requests for the Production of
`Documents and Things, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681
`(D. Del.) (excerpt)
`
`EX2006
`
`Joint Status Report Regarding Inter Partes Review
`Proceedings, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-
`00545 (C.D. Cal.) (without exhibits)
`
`EX2007 Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Stay
`Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patents-in-Suit, Nichia
`Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #52) (excerpt)
`
`EX2008 Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Stay
`Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patents-in-Suit, Nichia
`Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #61) (excerpt)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`EX2009 VIZIO, Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, Nichia
`Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.)
`(without exhibits) (highlighted excerpt)
`
`EX2010
`
`Exhibit 631-1 to VIZIO, Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-
`00545 (C.D. Cal.) (highlighted excerpt)
`
`EX2011 Defendants’ Corporate Disclosure Statement, Nichia Corp. v.
`TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case
`No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #14)
`
`EX2012
`
`EX2013
`
`EX2014
`
`EX2015
`
`EX2016
`
`EX2017
`
`EX2018
`
`EX2019
`
`TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited,
`Annual Report 2016
`
`Business Card of Steven Zhou, Legal Director of IP,
`TCL Corporation
`
`Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Lexington Luminance LLC v. TCL Multimedia
`Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11458 (D. Mass.)
`(Dkt. #22)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, TCL Corporation et al. v.
`Lexington Luminance LLC, IPR2017-01780, Pap. 2
`(July 15, 2017)
`
`Shuji Nakamura et al., The Blue Laser Diode: The Complete
`Story (2d ed. 2000) (excerpt)
`
`Press Release, The Nobel Prize in Physics 2014
`(The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Oct. 7, 2014)
`
`Shuji Nakamura, Nichia’s 1cd Blue LED Paves Way for Full-
`Color Display, Nikkei Electronics Asia, 65-69 (June 1994)
`
`Phosphor Handbook (Shigeo Shionoya et al. eds., 1999)
`(excerpt)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`EX2020 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993)
`(excerpt)
`
`EX2021
`
`Trial Transcript, Volume 3 of 12, Everlight Elecs. Co. et al. v.
`Nichia Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-11758 (E.D. Mich.
`Apr. 9, 2015) (Dkt. #510) (excerpt)
`
`EX2022 Memorandum and Order, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681
`(D. Del. Nov. 28, 2017) (Dkt. #67)
`
`EX2023
`
`EX2024
`
`Claim Construction Order, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681
`(D. Del. Dec. 5, 2017) (Dkt. #70)
`
`Slip Opinion, Everlight Elecs. Co. et al. v. Nichia Corp. et al.,
`2016-1577, 2016-1611 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2018)
`(nonprecedential)
`
`EX2025* Non-Confidential Joint Appendix, Everlight Elecs. Co. et al.
`v. Nichia Corp. et al., 2016-1577, 2016-1611
`(Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2018) (excerpt)
`
`EX2026 Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions, Nichia Corp. v.
`TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No.
`1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (dated June 2, 2017) (excerpt)
`
`
`* EX2025 contains pages of the joint appendix cited by the Federal Circuit in its
`
`Everlight decision (EX2024, 8 n.4): JA17581-82, JA17600-08. Nichia notes that
`
`pages within those cited ranges, JA017601 and JA017606, were not included in the
`
`joint appendix and, accordingly, they do not appear in EX2025.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX2027
`
`Description
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief, Nichia Corp. v. TCL
`Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-
`cv-00681 (D. Del. Dec. 5, 2017) (Dkt. #54) (excerpt)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) submits this §42.107
`
`Preliminary Response to the petition for IPR (“Petition” or “Pet.”) of claims 1-2, 4,
`
`and 6-11 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 (“’631”), filed by
`
`Petitioners TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd. (“TCL Multimedia”) and
`
`TTE Technology, Inc. (“TTE Technology”) (together, “Petitioners”).1
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petition fails to provide the basic evidence and analysis required to
`
`institute any IPR. In this Preliminary Response, Nichia addresses several of the
`
`Petition’s fundamental shortcomings, including that (i) Petitioners fail to disclose
`
`all real-parties-in-interest; (ii) Petitioners recycle the same or substantially the
`
`same references and arguments previously raised and rejected during the Office’s
`
`initial examination and the Board’s denials of numerous previous IPR petitions;
`
`(iii) Petitioners’ incomplete obviousness analysis skips mandatory Graham factors;
`
`(iv) Petitioners fail to show that Pinnow, one of their references for Grounds 2 and
`
`4, is analogous art that can be used in any obviousness combination; and (v)
`
`Petitioners’ references fail to disclose two material limitations in the sole
`
`independent claim (and, thus, every Challenged Claim). For these reasons, the
`
`Petition should be denied.
`
`1 Unless noted, all section references are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R., as context
`
`indicates, and all emphasis is added.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`II. The Petition Should Be Denied Because It Does Not Identify All Real-
`Parties-in-Interest.
`
`An IPR petition may be considered only if “the petition identifies all real
`
`parties in interest” (“RPIs”). 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2). This Petition fails to do so by
`
`omitting at least VIZIO, Inc., TTE Corporation (“TTEC”), and TCL Corporation
`
`(“TCLC”) as RPIs. Furthermore, these omissions are not correctable: when it was
`
`filed, VIZIO was already barred from filing this Petition by §315(b)’s one-year
`
`statutory time limit. EX2001 ¶¶12-17; EX2002, 1. And, as to TTEC and TCLC,
`
`Petitioners cannot now amend to include them as RPIs because, if accorded a new
`
`filing date, the Petition would be time-barred under §315(b). Petitioners filed their
`
`Petition exactly one year after Petitioner TTE Technology was served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’631. EX2003 ¶¶11-16; EX2004, 2.
`
`A. VIZIO is an unidentified real-party-in-interest.
`The America Invents Act safeguards against harassment of patent owners
`
`through, e.g., successive petitions by the same or related parties. Section
`
`315(b) provides that an “[IPR] may not be instituted if the petition requesting the
`
`proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, [RPI],
`
`or privy … is served with a complaint alleging infringement.” One of the “core
`
`functions” of the RPI requirement is “to protect patent owners from harassment via
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`successive petitions by the same or related parties” and “prevent parties from
`
`having a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759.
`
`As to VIZIO, Petitioners state it “previously filed a petition challenging the
`
`’631,” but “was represented by different counsel in that [IPR],” and then,
`
`apparently on that basis, assert “VIZIO is not [an RPI] herein.” Pet. 73-74. But,
`
`Petitioners make troubling omissions here.
`
`Petitioners and VIZIO are all accused, in pending lawsuits, of infringing
`
`the ’631 and three related patents. They share the same trial counsel, Quinn
`
`Emanuel, now appearing as Petitioners’ IPR counsel on this Petition, and are
`
`parties to a joint defense agreement concerning the ’631 and related patents.
`
`Pet. 73-74; EX2005, 46 (joint defense privilege asserted); EX2006, 4 (Quinn
`
`Emanuel listed as VIZIO’s counsel). TCL cannot plausibly deny its close
`
`strategizing with VIZIO regarding these patents and the related proceedings merely
`
`because VIZIO named different counsel on its previous petitions for these same
`
`patents, Pet. 74, or rely on the fact that VIZIO was the only-named petitioner and
`
`RPI in those petitions.2 In fact, Petitioners admit they communicated with VIZIO
`
`about the “preparation and/or filing” of VIZIO’s previous failed petitions.
`
`EX2005, 46. Other significant facts now available to Nichia further illuminate the
`
`2 See, e.g., IPR2017-00551, Pap. 2, 5 (Dec. 30, 2016).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`coordinated effort of Petitioners and VIZIO across both their IPR and courtroom
`
`defenses:
`
`• VIZIO’s preliminary litigation invalidity contentions involving the ’631
`
`copy, verbatim, significant portions of Petitioners’ present Petition;3
`
`• Petitioners filed this Petition on the last possible day for TTE
`
`Technology, seven weeks after VIZIO’s IPR denial, admitting they
`
`affirmatively used the first-wave VIZIO petition and its denial as a
`
`roadmap to further their joint defense group’s ends with this second wave
`
`of attacks, Pet. 1-2; EX2007, 6-7; and
`
`• Petitioners had intended to join VIZIO’s IPRs, if they had been
`
`instituted, EX2008, 4.
`
`While any one of these facts might, on its own, be insufficient to require
`
`finding VIZIO an RPI, together they should compel the Board to find Petitioners
`
`have failed to “establish that [they] complied with the statutory requirement” to
`
`name all RPIs. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Appistry, Inc., IPR2015-00480, Pap. 18, 3
`
`(July 13, 2015). Because VIZIO is an RPI, the Petition is time-barred under
`
`§315(b) and would, in any event, represent an improper “second bite at the apple”
`
`3 EX2009 and EX2010 (highlighted to show where VIZIO reproduced portions of
`
`the present Petition).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`in the guise of naming just Petitioners, see §325(d), §314(a), and discussion, infra.4
`
`TTEC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest.
`
`B.
`Petitioners admit, in their ’631 litigation corporate disclosure statement and
`
`their public statements, that Petitioner TTE Technology is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of TTEC, which is not named in the Petition and, in turn, is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Petitioner TCL Multimedia.5
`
`
`
`Petitioner TCL Multimedia can thus exercise complete control over Petitioner TTE
`
`
`4 Between this and the three related petitions, Petitioners have challenged all
`
`claims Nichia asserted in litigations against Petitioners and VIZIO, with the sole
`
`exception of dependent claim 18 of Nichia’s related U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959.
`
`5 EX2011; EX2012, 2 (TCL Multimedia is the “Company”), 111 (100% of TTEC’s
`
`equity attributable to TCL Multimedia), 113 (100% of TTE Technology’s equity
`
`attributable to TCL Multimedia).
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Technology only indirectly, through unnamed TTEC. Copperweld Corp. v.
`
`Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 771-72 (1984). But, in these
`
`proceedings, authority to file the Petition on behalf of TTE Technology was given
`
`to Petitioners’ counsel by a joint power of attorney executed by Steven Zhou,
`
`identified simply as TCL Multimedia’s IP Director with no identified position at
`
`TTE Technology. Pap. 1. It appears Zhou’s authority to execute a power of
`
`attorney on TTE Technology’s behalf as an officer of TCL Multimedia must have
`
`come through TTEC—i.e., unnamed TTEC is involved and had control over TTE
`
`Technology’s filing of the Petition.
`
`In addition, it is apparent TCL Multimedia, TTEC, and TTE Technology
`
`“are so intertwined that it is difficult for both insiders and outsiders to determine
`
`precisely where one ends and another begins.” Atl. Gas Light Co. v. Bennett
`
`Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Pap. 88, 11 (Jan. 6, 2015). For example,
`
`in addition to filing consolidated financials (EX2012, 97-207), TCL Multimedia
`
`repeatedly refers to itself and its direct and indirect subsidiaries as the “Group” and
`
`uses the pronoun “we” throughout its recent 2016 annual report (id., 2), approaches
`
`key corporate issues from the perspective of the “Group,” id., 17-24, 29, 65, 66,
`
`68, 72, 73, 75, 77, and has committees that take the same Group-wide approach,
`
`such as the strategy executive committee, which approves “routine matters or
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`matters concerning day-to-day operation of the Group.” Id., 62, 63, 64; Atl. Gas
`
`Light, 11.
`
`Given the relationships among these entities, including Zhou’s involvement
`
`here, it is clear the decision to file the Petition came from the top—i.e., at least
`
`from named Petitioner TCL Multimedia—through the corporate structure,
`
`including unnamed TTEC, down to named Petitioner TTE Technology.
`
`Petitioners’ omission of intermediate TTEC renders the Petition incomplete, and
`
`noncompliant with the statutory requirement to name all RPIs, thus requiring its
`
`denial. Amazon.com, 4-6 (denying petition where sued petitioners failed to
`
`identify as RPI an intermediate corporate entity that had not been sued).
`
`While §42.106(b) allows for certain corrections, it is unavailable here:
`
`Petitioners filed their Petition on August 25, 2017, a full year after Petitioner TTE
`
`Technology was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’631. Any
`
`correction would require assignment of a new filing date (§42.106(b)) more than
`
`one year after service, violating §315(b). Amazon.com, 6-7.
`
`C. TCLC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest.
`Additionally, it appears Petitioner TCL Multimedia’s parent company,
`
`unnamed TCLC, is also an RPI. It owns a controlling interest (52.10%) in
`
`Petitioner TCL Multimedia (EX2011; EX2012, 3):
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The same Steven Zhou is also TCLC’s IP Director. EX2013. While related
`
`entities sometimes share corporate officers and directors, TCLC’s and TCL
`
`Multimedia’s activity in another IPR shows TCLC’s exertion of control over such
`
`proceedings, making TCLC an RPI here, too. In that IPR, as here, Petitioners (but
`
`not TCLC) are defendants accused of infringing claims of another patent
`
`concerning light-emitting devices. EX2014 ¶¶2-4, 9, 15. A little over a month
`
`before the present Petition was filed, Petitioners filed an IPR of that other patent.
`
`EX2015. But unlike here, they also named TCLC, as petitioner and RPI. Id., 43.
`
`Under nearly identical circumstances, and only a month apart, there is no
`
`indication why controlling TCLC would be an RPI in that IPR but not this one.
`
`TCLC has the same power to control these proceedings, and certainly a similar
`
`desire to defeat the asserted patent. Trial Practice Guide, 48,759 (“[T]he ‘real
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`party-in-interest’ is the party that desires review of the patent.”).
`
`Because Petitioners failed to comply with the statutory requirement to name
`
`all RPIs, and this failure cannot be cured under §42.106(b) and §315(b), the
`
`Petition must be denied.
`
`III. The Board Should Deny Institution Under §325(d) and §314(a).
`A. The Office previously considered the same or substantially the
`same references and arguments.
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion to decline Petitioners’ invitation to
`
`institute an inter partes do-over. 35 U.S.C. §325(d). The Board has repeatedly
`
`denied institution when—as here—the petition fails to explain why this discretion
`
`to deny should not be exercised. See, e.g., Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`
`IPR2016-01571, Pap. 10, 11-12 (Dec. 14, 2016) (informative).
`
`In determining whether to dismiss under §325(d), the Board examines, first,
`
`whether the Petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments” as previously presented to the Office and, second, whether to exercise
`
`its discretion to deny institution. Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`
`IPR2015-01860, Pap. 13, 14-15 (Sept. 6, 2017).
`
`Here, all but one of the asserted references were previously considered by
`
`the Office during initial examination or the VIZIO proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`• Baretz was considered by the Examiner during prosecution, and by
`
`the Board in VIZIO’s petition. EX1001, 2; EX1041, 9-12.
`
`• Matoba was considered by the Examiner during prosecution,
`
`discussed in the ’631 specification’s background section, and
`
`considered by the Board in VIZIO’s petition. EX1001, 2; id. 2:5-13;
`
`EX1041, 9-12.
`
`• Shimizu was considered by the Examiner during prosecution, and
`
`discussed in the ’631 specification’s background section. EX1001, 2;
`
`id. 2:5-13.
`
`Petitioners rely on Pinnow for two Grounds of the Petition, but Pinnow was
`
`previously presented to the Examiner during the initial examination as well as to
`
`the Board in VIZIO’s four previous petitions, which were denied. EX1001, 2;
`
`EX1041, 2; EX1042, 7; EX1043, 9; EX1044, 2. And, faced with previous VIZIO
`
`decisions by the Board finding that Pinnow was not shown to be analogous art,
`
`Petitioners fail to present any substantially new arguments on this issue. They
`
`simply reference the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016), and assert that the Board ignored it. Not so. Cree was briefed by
`
`Nichia during the VIZIO proceedings. IPR2017-00551, Pap. 8, 50-51 (Apr. 10,
`
`2017). Moreover, Petitioners fail to rebut any of the Board’s analyses of Pinnow as
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`non-analogous in related VIZIO petitions. EX1043, 33-36; EX1044, 12-17. There
`
`are no new arguments for the Board to consider regarding whether Pinnow is
`
`analogous art.
`
`And, although the specific Nakamura reference asserted by Petitioners was
`
`not previously before the Office, it is cited in this Petition solely with respect to
`
`dependent claim 9 in Ground 3, and only for teaching a quantum well structure.
`
`Pet. 21-22, 52-55. The ’631 already cites other blue LED Nakamura references,
`
`including disclosure of quantum well structures. EX1001, 3; EX1002, 30-31, 51-
`
`59 (IDS, Nov. 1, 2010). Petitioners’ reliance on this Nakamura reference adds
`
`nothing new to the initial examination or the Board’s previous consideration of
`
`VIZIO’s petition.
`
`The Board should decline Petitioners’ invitation to retread old ground.
`
`The General Plastic factors favor denying institution.
`B.
`As detailed above, this Petition expressly seeks to learn from Nichia’s
`
`preliminary responses in VIZIO and the Board’s decisions denying institution, with
`
`Petitioners waiting the maximum time permitted under the statute to consider how
`
`best to benefit from prior invalidation attempts and deploy prior art they had in
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`hand for months beforehand.6 The Board should exercise its discretion under
`
`§314(a) to deny this Petition because the equitable factors the Board considers
`
`when evaluating follow-on petitions weigh against institution. E.g., Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, IPR2017-01305, Pap. 11, 16-17 (Oct. 17,
`
`2017) (citing Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`Pap. 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential)). The facts here are similar to those leading
`
`to denial in Samsung under §314(a). These same considerations, and the fact that
`
`Petitioners are raising the same, or, at minimum, substantially the same, prior art
`
`and arguments previously considered by the Office and Board, also show the
`
`Board should deny institution under §325(d), as well. E.g., R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 BV, IPR2017-01318, Pap. 12, 13 n.5 (Nov. 8, 2017).
`
`While the Board was applying both §314(a) and §325(d) long before
`
`General Plastic was made precedential,7 Petitioners offer not one word of
`
`substantive discussion to explain why the Board should allow Petitioners to repeat
`
`6 All of the asserted references here were cited on the face of the ’631, in the VIZIO
`
`petitions, and/or listed in Petitioners’ June 2017 invalidity contentions in the
`
`underlying litigation. EX2026.
`
`7 Alarm.com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc., IPR2016-01124, Pap. 11, 5-7 and n.3 (Dec. 5,
`
`2016).
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02000
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`substantially the same arguments yet again, using the Board’s prior decision as an
`
`improper road map. The applicable General Plastic factors are considered below.
`
`First, the Board considers “whether at the time of filing of the second
`
`petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to
`
`the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in
`
`the first petition.” Samsung, 20-21. This factor is clearly satisfied and weighs in
`
`favor of denial here. Id.; Pet. 1.
`
`Second, the Bo