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 CORP.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`“Light Emitting Device and Display”
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-02000
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,915,631
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘631 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE EVERLIGHT LITIGATION ....................................... 7
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`A.
`“transparent material”............................................................................ 9
`B.
`“diffuses” ............................................................................................. 10
`VI. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .............................................................................. 11
`A.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)) ......................... 11
`VII. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) ......................... 11
`VIII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ............................................................... 12
`A.
`Principles of Color Mixing. ................................................................. 12
`B.
`Phosphors Are Commonly Used to Create White And Different
`Light Colors ......................................................................................... 13
`In 1996, YAG Phosphors Were Well Known For Converting
`Blue Emissions To Yellow In Lighting Products, Especially
`Under Harsh Operating Conditions ..................................................... 14
`Emergence of Commercially Viable Blue LEDs ................................ 15
`The Blue Plus Yellow Approach to Making a White LED was a
`Natural And Obvious Progression ...................................................... 16
`IX. SUMMARY OF THE CITED PRIOR ART ................................................. 17
`A.
`Baretz ................................................................................................... 18
`B.
`Shimizu ................................................................................................ 18
`C. Matoba ................................................................................................. 20
`D.
`Pinnow ................................................................................................. 20
`E.
`The 1995 Nakamura Reference ........................................................... 21
`
`D.
`E.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 22
`A. Ground 1: Baretz, Shimizu and Matoba Render Claims 1-2, 6,
`and 10-11 Obvious .............................................................................. 22
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 23
`(a) Baretz Discloses 1.Pre. ................................................... 23
`(b) Baretz Discloses 1a ......................................................... 24
`(c) Baretz Discloses 1b ........................................................ 25
`(d) Baretz and Shimizu Disclose 1c ..................................... 26
`(i)
`Baretz .................................................................... 26
`(ii) Shimizu ................................................................. 29
`(iii) Motivation to combine Baretz and Shimizu ........ 31
`(e) Baretz Discloses 1d ........................................................ 31
`(f) Matoba Discloses 1e ....................................................... 31
`(g) Baretz Discloses 1f ......................................................... 32
`(h) A POSITA Would have Been Motivated TO
`Combine Baretz, Shamizu and Matoba And Had A
`reasonable Expectation of Success In So Doing ............ 34
`Baretz Discloses Claim 2 .......................................................... 37
`2.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 6 .......................................................... 37
`3.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 10 ........................................................ 38
`4.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 11 ........................................................ 38
`5.
`B. Ground 2: Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Pinnow Render
`Claims 4 and 7-8 Obvious ................................................................... 39
`1.
`Baretz, Shimizu, and Pinnow Disclose Claim 3 ....................... 40
`(a) Baretz discloses an LED chip that emits light
`having a spectrum with a peak in the range from
`420 to 490 nm. ................................................................ 41
`Pinnow discloses a phosphor with the claimed
`“peak” wavelength and “tail.” ........................................ 41
`Shimizu discloses that the spectrum of the light
`emitted from the phosphor and the spectrum of the
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`light emitted from the LED chip overlap with each
`other to make a continuous combined spectrum
`(single color). .................................................................. 42
`(d) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba and Pinnow
`And Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success In
`So Doing ......................................................................... 43
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 4 .............................................. 50
`(e)
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 7 ........................................................ 51
`2.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 8 ........................................................ 52
`3.
`C. Ground 3: Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Nakamura Render
`Claim 9 Obvious .................................................................................. 52
`1.
`Nakamura Discloses Claim 9 .................................................... 52
`2.
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To Combine
`Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Nakamura And Had a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 53
`D. Ground 4: Matoba, Shimizu and Pinnow Render Claims 1, 4, 6-
`8, and 10-11 Obvious .......................................................................... 55
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 56
`(a) Matoba Discloses 1.Pre. ................................................. 56
`(b) Matoba Discloses 1a ....................................................... 57
`(c) Matoba Discloses 1b ....................................................... 57
`(d) Matoba, Shimizu and Pinnow Disclose 1c ..................... 58
`(i) Matoba discloses the claimed phosphor,
`absorbing LED light, and emitting light of a
`different wavelength ............................................. 58
`
`(ii)
`
`Shimizu discloses absorbing a “part” of the
`LED light. ............................................................. 60
`(iii) Pinnow discloses absorbing a “part” of the
`blue emision from the light source. ...................... 60
`(iv) A POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine Matoba, Shimizu and Pinnow with
`A reasonable expectation of success .................... 61
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Shimizu Discloses 1d ...................................................... 67
`(e)
`(f) Matoba Discloses 1e ....................................................... 68
`(g) Matoba Discloses 1f ....................................................... 68
`2. Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow Disclose Claim 4 ..................... 71
`(a) Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow Disclose Claim 3 ........... 71
`(b)
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 4 .............................................. 72
`Shimizu Discloses Claim 6 ....................................................... 72
`3.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 7 ........................................................ 72
`4.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 8 ........................................................ 72
`5.
`Shimizu Discloses Claim 10 ..................................................... 72
`6.
`7. Matoba Discloses Claim 11 ...................................................... 73
`XI. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 73
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 73
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 74
`1.
`Related Patent Office Proceedings............................................ 74
`2.
`Related Litigation ...................................................................... 74
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............................... 74
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................................. 75
`D.
`XII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R §§
`42.101, 42.104, and 42.108) .......................................................................... 75
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.101(a)-(c)) ...................................................................................... 75
`XIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 75
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Cree,
` 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................... 45, 63
`
`In re Cree,
` 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 1,
` ............................................... 2, 3, 4, 5, 21, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 46, 49, 50,
` .......................................................... 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
` 766 F.3d 1364, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................... 9
`
`KSR v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) ................................................................ 40, 44, 63
`
`Panel Claw, Inc. v. Sunpower Corp., IPR2014-00386, Paper,
`No. 7 at 7 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014) ..........................................................8, 10
`
`PO. Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
` 491 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................... 19, 20, 21, 34, 43, 61
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam, CBM2016-00081, Paper,
` 12 at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016) (applying traditional test for
`collateral estoppel as set forth in |Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 342
`F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................ 18, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ................................................................................. 18, 19, 20, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ....................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)-(b) ...........................................................................................75
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ..............................................................................................73
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................73
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4) .......................................................................................74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................74
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................75
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(i) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq........................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101(a)-(c) .......................................................................................75
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...............................................................................................75
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) ............................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) .................................................... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,691,482 ................................................................................. 45, 63
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 ................................................................................... vii, 1
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`LIST OF PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959 to Shimizu et al.
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Eric Bretschneider
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Declaration of Coral Sheldon-Hess
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (“Baretz”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Japanese Examined Patent Application Publication No. H08-7614
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Examined Patent Application
`Publication No. H08-7614 (“Shimuzu”)
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H07-
`99345
`Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. H07-99345 (“Matoba”)
`Japanese Laid Open Patent Application Publication No. H05-
`152609
`Certified Translation of Japanese Laid Open Patent Application
`Publication No. H05-152609 (“Tadatsu”)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 to Pinnow et al. (“Pinnow”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,816,576 to Auzel (“Auzel”)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,376 to Banks (“Banks”)
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Nakamura et. al., “High-power InGaN single-quantum-well-
`structure blue and violet light-emitting diodes,” Appl. Phys. Lett.
`67 (13), 25 September 1995 (“Nakamura”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`G. Blasse et al., “Luminescent Materials,” Springer-Verlag (New
`York), 1994 (“Blasse”)
`W. O’Mara, “Liquid Crystal Flat Panel Displays,” Van Nostrand
`Reinhold, New York (1993)
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`German Patent Application No. DE 19638667 A1 to Schlotter et al.
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Certified Translation of German Patent Application No. DE
`19638667 A1 to Schlotter et al. (“Osram”)
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,078,732 to Reeh et al.
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`M. Hoffman, “Improved color rendition in high pressure mercury
`vapor lamps,” Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society,
`Vol. 6 No. 2, Jan. 1997 (“Hoffman”)
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,691,482 to Pinnow et al.
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`H. Rossotti, “Colour,” Princeton University Press, 1983
`(“Rossotti”)
`S. Nakamura et al., “Candela-class high brightness InGaN/AlGaN
`double-heterostructure blue-light emitting diodes,” Applied Physics
`Letters, No. 64 No. 13 (Mar. 28, 1994) (“Nakamura II”)
`G. Blasse et al., “A New Phosphor for Flying-Spot Cathode-Ray
`Tubes for Color Television: Yellow-Emitting Y3Al5O12-Ce3+,
`Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 11 No. 2 (Jul. 15, 1967)
`G. Blasse et al, “Investigation of Some Ce3+-Activated Phosphors,”
`The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 47 No. 12 (Dec. 15, 1967)
`D.A. Pinnow et al., “Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light
`for Black and White and Multicolor Displays,” Applied Optics
`(Jan. 1971)
`Herbert Maruska, Dissertation, Gallium Nitride Light-Emitting
`Diodes, Chapter 1 (Nov. 1974) (“Maruska”)
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,727,283 to van Kemenade et al. (“Phillips”)
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,740,570 to Kaelin et al.
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,090,189 to Fisler
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,819,974 to Stevenson et al.
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`Class for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
`“Efficient Blue Light-Emitting Diodes Leading to Bright and
`Energy-Saving White Light Sources,” Kungl. Vetenskaps-
`Akademien (Oct. 7, 2014)
`Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Everlight et al. v. Nichia Corp. et
`al., Appeal Nos. 2016-1577, -1611 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2016)
`Trial Transcript in Everlight et al. v. Nichia Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-
`11758 (E.D.Mich. Apr. 17, 2015)
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,531,960 to Shimizu et al (“’960 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,998,925 to Shimizu et al (“’925 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`Ex. 1039
`
`BASF – The Chemical Company: Lumogen® F Yellow 083 Data
`Sheet
`BASF – The Chemical Company: Lumogen® F Orange 240 Data
`Sheet
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`Sinloihi’s EL Color Conversion Pigment – FA-000 Series
`
`Ex. 1041
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00551
`
`Ex. 1042
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00552
`
`Ex. 1043
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00556
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00558
`
`Ex. 1045 MARC Record for Blasse
`
`Ex. 1046 MARC Record for O’Mara
`
`Ex. 1047 MARC Record for Rossotti
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., TCL
`
`Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd. and TTE Technology, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“TCL”) respectfully request that the Board initiate Inter Partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-2, 4 and 6-11 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`(“the ‘631 patent”), which is assigned to Nichia Corp. (“PO”).
`
`The ’631 patent was the subject of a prior IPR petition. In IPR2017-00551,
`
`the Board denied institution, because Petitioner Vizio failed to provide basic
`
`substantive analysis of its grounds, instead relying on summary claim charts.
`
`Ex.1022, pp. 8-9. Here, Petitioner TCL presents different grounds and provides
`
`substantive analysis for each ground.
`
` Petitioner TCL also submits a
`
`comprehensive evidentiary record that provides the basis for combining blue LED
`
`prior art references with the non-LED Pinnow reference, as was found proper in In
`
`re Cree, 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘631 patent is part of PO’s attempt to monopolize the basic notion of
`
`mixing blue and yellow to create white, as applied to LEDs. But the ‘631 patent
`
`did not advance LED art in any discernible way. The true breakthrough occurred
`
`shortly before PO’s alleged invention – when Prof. Nakamura invented high
`
`intensity blue light LEDs after a 20-year industry-wide struggle to do so. As PO’s
`
`expert in related district court litigation acknowledged, Nakamura’s new blue
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`LEDs “were what gave everyone the incentive to move forward to create a simple
`
`blue plus yellow LED that emits white light.” Ex.1035,144:4-145:25. In fact,
`
`Nichia’s litigation expert explained that “after the demonstration of the blue LEDs,
`
`the development of the white LED was unstoppable.” Id., 153:16-19.
`
`PO’s expert testified in litigation involving USPNs 5,998,925 and 7,531,960
`
`asserted against LED manufacturer Everlight Electronics Co., where all asserted
`
`claims – including claims reciting a blue LED combined with a yellow phosphor to
`
`make white light using the partial down-conversion approach1 – were found invalid
`
`over the prior art. Undeterred by that ruling, PO now asserts four related patents,
`
`all claiming priority to the application leading to the ’925 patent, against numerous
`
`LED customers. However, like the asserted claims of the ’925/’960 patents, the
`
`’631 patent claims are invalid over the prior art.
`
`The evidence here reveals that the immediate and obvious development of
`
`blue LEDs with yellow phosphors after Nakamura’s blue LEDs became
`
`commercially available in about 1994. By 1995, prior art publications disclosed
`
`the combination of the new blue LED with phosphors that partially absorbed the
`
`1 “Down-conversion” refers to converting a light emission to a lower frequency
`
`emission and thus a higher wavelength, e.g., converting blue light at 450 nm
`
`wavelength to yellow light at 570 nm. Partial down-conversions means that some
`
`the original light (e.g., blue) is not converted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`blue light to make yellow light that was then mixed with the remaining blue LED
`
`emission to make white light. And, by September 1996, Siemens AG’s lighting
`
`group Osram-Sylvania had already developed a white LED using the new blue
`
`LED with the preferred “yttrium aluminum garnet,” or “YAG,” phosphor of the
`
`’631 patent. (Ex.1019). The selection and combination of YAG phosphor with the
`
`new blue LED required no more than routine skill, as YAG was one of the few
`
`yellow phosphors known to absorb blue light while also withstanding harsh
`
`operating conditions, as taught in both the Hoffman and Pinnow references.
`
`In fact, in reexamination No. 90/010,940, the PTAB determined that it
`
`would have been obvious in March 1996 to combine Pinnow’s teachings with
`
`Nakamura’s newly disclosed blue LED to make white light. The Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed that ruling, noting the Board’s view that “the invention was ‘nothing more
`
`than a new application of a high-power, high-brightness blue LED developed by
`
`Dr. Nakamura in late 1993’” that “was predictable in view of the state of the art in
`
`LEDs, the market demand for white light devices, the finite number of identified
`
`means to convert light from LEDs into white light, and the advantages of using the
`
`down-conversion approach.” In re Cree, 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`Federal Circuit further agreed with the Board’s combination of Nakamura’s blue
`
`LED with Pinnow:
`
`The Board found that Pinnow teaches a down-conversion
`process for creating white light that would work with blue light of any
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`source, including the blue LEDs disclosed in Nakamura. That was an
`entirely reasonable conclusion to draw from Pinnow. Therefore the
`Board was correct when it said that it was “known” to create white
`light from LEDs using down-conversion, as Pinnow teaches a down-
`conversion process that was understood to be equally applicable
`when used with an LED light source as with the laser source
`specifically used in Pinnow.
`
`Id. at 700. Pinnow teaches the use of a YAG phosphor to partially down-convert
`
`blue laser emission light to make white light. Ex.1012,Abstract,1:38-43,4:25-36.
`
`Petitioner notes that the Board denied institution on other patents in the ’631
`
`family, based primarily on Petitioner’s Vizio failure to show that Baretz and
`
`Pinnow were not to be analogous art. IPR2017-00558,Paper 9; IPR2017-
`
`00556,Paper 9. Here, as in In re Cree, the record shows the applicability of the
`
`Pinnow to blue LEDs. With the complete record presented here, and the additional
`
`references discussed below, it is respectfully submitted that Petitioners have
`
`established that it is more likely than not that the Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘631 PATENT
`
`The ’631 patent, titled a “Light Emitting Device and Display,” generally
`
`describes the well-known idea of an LED that combines a light emitting light
`
`source with a phosphor to converts the wavelength of the light from the source into
`
`a different wavelength. Ex.1001,1:27-31. The ’631 patent describes the new
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Nakamura blue LED and further explains that prior art “Kokai” publications2 have
`
`already taught combining the new blue LED with yellow phosphors. Id.,2:5-29.
`
`Figure 1 shows an embodiment of the present invention, with a blue LED
`
`chip surrounded by both coating material (highlighted in yellow below) and
`
`molding material (highlighted in gray below). The ’631 patent discloses that “the
`
`phosphor may be contained either in the molding material or in the coating
`
`material…[or] in both the coating material and the molding material.” Id.,16:33-
`
`37, 16:60-62, 16:65-17:4, 17:9-11.
`
`
`2 As discussed in more detail below, the “Kokai” applications discussed in the ‘631
`
`specification includes the Shimizu prior art.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The application leading to the ’631 patent (Application No. 12/548,618) was
`
`filed on August 27, 2009, claiming priority back to Application No. 08/902,725,
`
`filed on Jul. 29, 1997, now Pat. No. 5,998,925. Ex.1002. The ’631 patent issued
`
`on March 29, 2011, without any Office Actions or amendments to the claims
`
`during prosecution. Id.
`
`For ease of reference, the Challenged Claims are reproduced in Appendix A
`
`with numbered claim limitations corresponding to the numbering used throughout
`
`this Petition.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE EVERLIGHT LITIGATION
`
`As noted above, Nichia asserted the ’925 and ’960 patents against Everlight
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd in the Eastern District of Michigan. The asserted claims in
`
`that litigation are very similar to those of the ‘631 patent.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’631 patent is directed to making “white light”
`
`using a blue LED and a down-converting phosphor “capable of absorbing a part
`
`of” the blue LED emission with the phosphor concentrated near the blue LED chip.
`
`CITE. claim 2 of the ’960 patent recites these same elements. However, based on
`
`the prior art, the jury determined that the combination of element in claim 2 of the
`
`’960 patent was obvious and the district court entered judgment of invalidity for
`
`that claim. Similarly, like claim 7 of the ’631 patent, claim 2 of the ’925 patent
`
`requires the specific use of YAG phosphor in combination with a blue LED. The
`
`jury found that such combination was also obvious.
`
`Based on the principles of collateral estoppel, the determination that the
`
`subject matter of the claims at issue in the Everlight litigation was obvious over the
`
`prior art is binding against Nichia. See SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam, CBM2016-
`
`00081, Paper 12 at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016) (applying traditional test for
`
`collateral estoppel as set forth in Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 342 F.3d 1320, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003)). Thus, Nichia should not be able to assert, for example, that it
`
`was not obvious to combine the new Nakamura blue LED with YAG phosphor to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`make white light using a partial down-conversion approach.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The art to which the ‘631 patent is directed is the field of Optics and/or LED
`
`technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art related to the ‘631 patent would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering, material science, chemistry or
`
`electrical engineering, and approximately four to five years of professional or
`
`research experience in the field of Optics and/or LED technology, or an advanced
`
`degree (such as a Masters or Ph.D.) in one of those areas with little to no
`
`experience working in the field of LED technology. Ex.1003,¶75.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`When considering an expired patent, like the ‘631 patent, the claims are
`
`construed using the district-court-type Phillips standard. Panel Claw, Inc. v.
`
`Sunpower Corp., IPR2014-00386, Paper No. 7 at 7 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014)
`
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Accordingly, TCL applies district court
`
`type claim construction in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioners submit that the terms of the ‘631 patent should be given their
`
`ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art under the district court type
`
`standard. However, PO has argued in the Litigation that the terms “transparent
`
`material” (claims 1 and 11) and “diffuses” (claim 1) should be interpreted
`
`inconsistent their ordinary meanings. Petitioner therefore provides the ordinary
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`meaning for those terms below. Petitioners reserve the right to respond to, and/or
`
`to offer alternative constructions, to any proposed claim term constructions offered
`
`by Patent Owner.3
`
`A.
`
`“transparent material”
`
`Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘631 patent recite the claim language “transparent
`
`material.” This term should be construed as “material that allows light to pass
`
`through,” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning. Ex.1003,¶¶63-66.
`
`By contrast, in the ’551 proceeding and in co-pending Delaware litigation,
`
`PO argued that this term should be limited to “a unitary transparent material.” In
`
`particular, PO argues that “transparent material” excludes any embodiments in
`
`which multiple, transparent subcomponents work in tandem, for example, where
`
`the material is applied in layers. IPR2016-0551, Paper 8 at 22. As explained
`
`below, PO’s construction improperly rewrites the claim.
`
`Claim 1 merely recites a “transparent material covering said LED chip” in
`
`the context of the light that must pass through it. A “transparent material” need not
`
`be “unitary” to allow light to pass through it. Ex.1003,¶64.
`
`
`3 TCL takes no position in this Petition as to whether the claims of the ‘631 patent
`
`are definite and does not concede that any claims therein are definite. See Interval
`
`Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`The specification supports Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`
` The
`
`specification identifies two transparent materials, one layered on top of the other.
`
`First, “coating material 101” may be “a transparent material … such as epoxy
`
`resin, urea resin and silicone or glass.” Ex.1001,16:35-37. Second, “molding
`
`material 104” is preferably made from “transparent materials having high
`
`weatherability such as epoxy resin, urea resin, silicon resin or glass.” Id., 16:60-62
`
`The molding material may be made in a structure of “multiple layers.” Id. 16:55-
`
`17:6. The specification states that the phosphor may be contained in either the
`
`“molding material or the coating material” or in the “coating material and the
`
`molding materials.” Thus, the specification contemplates layered transparent
`
`materials as part of exemplary “Embodiment 1.” Id., 9:64. Ex.1003,¶¶63-66.
`
`B.
`
`“diffuses”
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘631 patent recites the claim language “diffuses.” This term
`
`should be construed as “scatters,” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`PO asserts that “diffusion” only includes scattering due to reflection and not
`
`refraction. The intrinsic evidence supports the use of the plain meaning.
`
`Ex.1003,¶¶67-68.
`
`First, the claim language is distinctly agnostic to how the phosphor performs
`
`diffusion – it certainly is not limited to reflections off the phosphor. Second, the
`
`‘631 patent specification describes the process of diffusing light in only one
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`sentence, which broadly states that “light is emitted after being diffused by the
`
`fluorescent material.” Ex.1001,9:11-15. This sentence imposes no restriction on
`
`possible methods of diffusion. The prosecution history likewise does not disclaim
`
`diffusion to a particular protocol. Thus, the claim language, specification, and
`
`prosecution history supports the plain and ordinary meaning of “diffuses” as
`
`“scatters.” Ex.1003,¶¶63-66.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`A.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioners request Inter Partes review of claims 1-2, 4 and 6-11 of the ‘631
`
`patent and requests that the PTAB cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`VII. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that Inter Partes review of 1-2, 4 and 6-11 of
`
`the ‘631 patent be instituted because this Petition establishes a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioners will prevail with respect to at least one claim.
`
`#
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Grou