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
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375
`
`“Light Emitting Device and Display”
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-02001
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`THE ‘375 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE EVERLIGHT LITIGATION ....................................... 7
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`VI. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM ................................................................................ 9
`A.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ............................. 9
`B.
`Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) ................................ 9
`VII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ............................................................... 10
`A.
`Principles of Color Mixing. ................................................................. 10
`B. Measuring Color .................................................................................. 11
`C.
`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 ............................... 13
`Emergence of Commercially Viable Blue LEDs ................................ 15
`The Blue Plus Yellow Approach to Making A White LED was
`a Natural And Obvious Progression .................................................... 16
`VIII. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................. 17
`A.
`Baretz ................................................................................................... 17
`B.
`Shimizu ................................................................................................ 18
`C.
`Tadatsu ................................................................................................ 20
`D.
`1995 Nakamura Reference .................................................................. 21
`E.
`Pinnow ................................................................................................. 23
`F.
`Blasse ................................................................................................... 23
`G.
`Rosotti ................................................................................................. 24
`
`E.
`F.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IX.
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 25
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 1 and 4 are Obvious Over Baretz, Shimizu,
`Pinnow and Rosotti ............................................................................. 25
`1.
`Baretz Discloses 1.Pre .............................................................. 28
`2.
`Baretz Discloses 1a ................................................................... 30
`3.
`Baretz Shimizu and Pinnow Disclose 1b ................................. 31
`(a) Baretz and Shimizu disclose a phosphor that
`absorbs part of the blue LED light, emits yellow
`and “selecting” the phosphor. ......................................... 31
`(i)
`Baretz .................................................................... 32
`(ii)
`Shimizu ................................................................. 34
`Pinnow discloses a phosphor with the claimed
`“peak” wavelength and “tail.” ........................................ 38
`Shimizu Discloses 1c ................................................................ 39
`Rossotti Discloses 1d ................................................................ 40
`Shimizu Discloses 1e ................................................................ 43
`Baretz Shimizu and Pinnow Disclose claim 4 .......................... 43
`A POSITA Would have been Motivated to Combine
`Baretz, Shimizu and Pinnow And Rossotti, With a
`Reasonable Expectation Of Success ......................................... 43
`Ground 2 – Claims 1 and 4 are Obvious Over Tadatsu,
`Nakamura, Shimizu, Blasse, and Rossotti .......................................... 55
`1.
`Tadatsu Discloses 1.Pre ............................................................ 56
`2.
`Tadatsu and Nakamura Disclose Limitation 1a ........................ 57
`(a)
`Tadatsu and Nakamura Disclose 1a ............................... 57
`(b) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Combined Tadatsu Nakamura, With a
`Reasonable Expectation Of Success ............................... 59
`Tadatsu, Shimizu and Blasse Disclose 1b ................................ 61
`
`(b)
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`(a)
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Shimizu discloses a phosphor that absorbs part of
`the blue LED light, emits yellow and “selecting”
`the phosphor. ................................................................... 61
`(b) Blasse discloses a phosphor with the claimed
`“peak” wavelength and “tail.” ........................................ 62
`(c) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Combine Tadatsu, Shimizu and Blasse,
`With a Reasonable Expectation Of Success ................... 63
`Shimizu Discloses 1c ................................................................ 68
`Rossotti Discloses 1d ................................................................ 69
`Shimizu Discloses 1e ................................................................ 71
`Tadatsu, Nakamura, Shimizu, and Blasse Disclose Claim
`4 ................................................................................................. 71
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Support A Finding Of Non-
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 71
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 72
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 72
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 72
`1.
`Related Patent Office Proceedings............................................ 72
`2.
`Related Litigation ...................................................................... 72
`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)) ............................... 73
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................................. 73
`D.
`XI. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R
`§§ 42.101, 42.104, AND 42.108) .................................................................. 73
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.101(a)-(c)) ................................................................................. 73
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`C.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,
` 795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................ 47, 48, 55, 66
`
`In re Cree,
` 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................50
`
`In re Cree,
` 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ... 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 25, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60,
`67, 70
`
`Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc.,
`342 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Intern., Inc.,
` 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................38
`
`Geo. M. Martin v. Alliance Machine Systems,
` 618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 29, 55
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
` 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................11
`
`KSR v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 28, 49, 50
`
`Panel Claw, Inc. v. Sunpower Corp., IPR2014-00386, Paper,
`No. 7 at 7 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014) .....................................................................10
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC,
`IPR2015-01478, (Mar. 17, 2015) ........................................................................73
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................10
`
`PO. Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
` 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................ 22, 36, 61, 65
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam,
`CBM2016-00081, (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016) ....................................................... 9
`
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01453, (Mar. 10, 2015) ........................................................................72
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ............................................................... 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ............................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315 (a)-(b) ..........................................................................................75
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`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) ..............................................................................................73
`
`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
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................................................................................74
`
`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
`
`Additional Authorities
`
`Pinnow, U.S. Patent No. (Ex.1022) .........................................................................50
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`LIST OF PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 to Shimizu et al.
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375
`
`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”)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`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”)
`
`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
`
`H. Rossotti, “Colour,” Princeton University Press, 1983
`(“Rossotti”)
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`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)
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`G. Blasse et al, “Investigation of Some Ce3+-Activated Phosphors,”
`The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 47 No. 12 (Dec. 15, 1967)
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`D.A. Pinnow et al., “Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light
`for Black and White and Multicolor Displays,” Applied Optics
`(Jan. 1971)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Ex. 1028
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Ex. 1043
`EX. 1043
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00556
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-005 56
`
`Ex. 1044
`EX. 1044
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00558
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-005 5 8
`
`MARC Record for Rossotti
`
`Ex. 1045 MARC Record for Blasse
`EX. 1045
`MARC Record for Blasse
`
`Ex. 1046 MARC Record for O’Mara
`EX. 1046
`MARC Record for O’Mara
`
`Ex. 1047 MARC Record for Rossotti
`EX. 1047
`
`
`
`ix
`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 and 4 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 (the “‘375
`
`patent,” Ex.1001), which is assigned to Nichia Corp. (“PO”).
`
`The ‘375 patent was the subject of a prior IPR petition. In IPR2017-00558,
`
`the Board denied institution, because Petitioner Vizio failed to provide basic
`
`substantive analysis of its grounds, instead relying on summary claim charts.
`
`Ex.1044, pp. 14-17. 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). Particularly, Petitioner here provides
`
`expert testimony, consistent with the Cree decision, that the relied-upon references
`
`are all in the same field of endeavor and would have been combined by a POSITA,
`
`and evidence that the ‘375 claims were invented nearly simultaneously by Osram,
`
`as described in its German patent application.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘375 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 ‘375 patent
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`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 struggle to do so. As PO’s expert in
`
`related district court litigation acknowledged, Nakamura’s new blue LEDs “were
`
`what gave everyone the incentive to move forward to create a simple blue plus
`
`yellow LED that emits white light.” Ex.1035, 144:10-16. 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.
`
`Nichia’s expert testified in a 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 a 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 ‘375 patent claims are invalid over the prior art.
`
`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
`
`of the original light (e.g., blue) is not converted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`The prior art 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 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 ‘375 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`down-conversion approach.” In re Cree, 828 F.3d at 699. 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 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.
`
`Petitioner notes that the Board denied institution on other patents in the ‘375
`
`family, based primarily on Petitioner Vizio’s failure to show that Baretz and
`
`Pinnow were not to be analogous art. See Exs.1042;1043. 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. THE ‘375 PATENT
`
`A. The ‘375 Patent Specification
`
`The ‘375 patent, titled a “Light Emitting Device and Display,” generally
`
`describes the well-known idea of an LED that combines a light emitting light
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`source with a phosphor that converts the wavelength of the light from the source
`
`into a different wavelength. Ex.1001,1:27-33. The ‘375 patent describes the new
`
`Nakamura blue LED and further explains that certain prior art “Kokai”
`
`publications2 have already taught combining the new blue LED with yellow
`
`phosphors. Id.,2:7-16.
`
`The LED chip described in the ‘375 patent is of an entirely conventional
`
`design, and includes an LED chip within a cup. The LED chip is surrounded by
`
`transparent molding and coating material, and connected to the inner and mount
`
`leads using conductive wires. Id.,8:38-57,Fig.1; Ex.1003,¶52. This basic
`
`configuration is depicted in Figure 1, reproduced and annotated below:
`
`
`2 As discussed in more detail below, the “Kokai” applications discussed in the ‘375
`
`specification includes the Shimizu prior art.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`During operation, light from the blue LED excites phosphor contained in the
`
`coating, which causes the phosphor to emit yellow light. Unabsorbed LED light is
`
`then mixed with the yellow phosphor emission to create whit light.
`
`B. Prosecution History for the ‘375 Patent
`
`The prosecution history of the ‘375 patent was relatively short. Importantly,
`
`none of the references used in the below Grounds were subject to substantive
`
`consideration during prosecution. The patent was subject to a single rejection,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`which the applicants overcame by swearing behind the references and by arguing,
`
`inter alia, that the cited references did not have a peak wavelength of 530-570nm
`
`and a tail beyond 700nm, as required by claim 4. Ex.1002,pp.163-166. The claims
`
`were subsequently allowed. Id.,p.89.
`
`C. The Challenged Claims
`
`For ease of reference, the Challenged Claims 1 and 4 are reproduced in
`
`Appendix A with numbered claim limitations corresponding to the numbering used
`
`throughout this Petition.
`
`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 similar to those of the ‘375 patent.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ‘375 patent is directed to making “white color
`
`light” using a blue LED and a down-converting phosphor “capable of absorbing a
`
`part of” the blue LED emission.” The unabsorbed blue light from the LED and the
`
`phosphor emission are mixed to make white light. Ex.1001,30:63-31:7. Claim 2
`
`of the ‘960 patent recites these same elements. Ex. 1036,30:65-31:19. However,
`
`the jury determined that the combination of elements in claim 2 of the ‘960 patent
`
`was obvious over the prior art and the district court entered judgment of invalidity
`
`on that basis.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`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
`
`make white light using a partial down-conversion approach.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art related to the ‘375 patent would have 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 Optics and/or LED technology. Ex.1003,¶77.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`When considering an expired patent, like the ‘375 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)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`(citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`Accordingly, TCL applies district court type claim construction in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioners submit that the terms of the ‘375 patent should be given their
`
`ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art under the district court type
`
`standard. 3 Ex.1003,¶70.
`
`VI.
`
` STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`A.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1 and 4 of the ‘375 patent and request that
`
`the Board cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`B. Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that IPR of claims 1 and 4 be instituted
`
`because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This petition is
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`#
`
`1
`
`Ground
`
`Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Baretz, Shimizu, Pinnow, and
`
`
`3 TCL takes no position in this Petition as to whether the claims of the ‘375 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
`
`

`

`Rossotti
`
`Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Tadatsu, Nakamura, Shimizu,
`Blasse, and Rossotti
`
`2
`
`
`
`VII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Principles of Color Mixing.
`
`The principles of color mixing have been known for over 300 years. In
`
`1704, Isaac Newton published a paper on mixing colors to create other colors.
`
`Ex.1003,¶23. Color is detected in the eye by cells in the retina that are sensitive to
`
`red, green, and blue light, which are the only colors that the eye perceives; all other
`
`colors are mixtures of red, green, and blue. Id. Different colors and mixes of
`
`colors correlate to different given wavelengths, as shown in the following chart:
`
`Thus, for example, light having a wavelength of between 560 and 590 is
`
`perceived as shades of yellow, even if the perceived “yellow” light is generated by
`
`mixing green and red. Humans perceive white when the red, green, and blue cones
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`within the eye are stimulated roughly equally. Id.,¶26. This is reflected by white
`
`appearing in the center of the color wheel, shown below. Id.
`
`
`
`In Newton’s paper published in 1704, he described how white can be made
`
`either by mixing equal parts red, green, and blue or by combining blue and yellow.
`
`Id.,¶27. Thus, the concept of mixing the color blue with the color yellow to make
`
`the color white has been known for hundreds of years.
`
`B. Measuring Color
`
`Because the perception of color can be subjective, lighting scientists
`
`devised a method of objectively measuring color. In 1931, the International
`
`Commission for Illumination (CIE) devised a chromaticity diagram. Id.,¶¶28-29.
`
`The 1931 CIE chromaticity diagram plots the visible light spectrum on a set of x-y
`
`coordinates. This diagram quantifies the relationship between physical pure colors
`
`(i.e., wavelengths) and the visible spectrum, as perceived by the human eye.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Id.,¶28. A line connecting any two primary colors on the x and y axes will show
`
`the possible colors visible by combining those two colors. Id. In the below chart,4
`
`for example, a line drawn between the yellow light from the Pinnow reference
`
`(550nm) and blue light from the Baretz reference (450nm) shows that those two
`
`colors will combine to make a white (id.,¶29):
`
`
`4 The CIE is the standards body that defines the “standard observer” and the CIE
`
`
`
`chromaticity curve. Ex.1003,¶29.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`As shown in this diagram, adding more yellow to the blue-yellow
`
`combination will produce a more yellowish colored white, while adding more blue
`
`will produce a more blueish-colored white. See also, Ex.1022,2:65-3:3 (“Every
`
`real color, regardless of its spectral complexity, can be represented by a single
`
`point on or within this ploy. A straight line connecting any two points (primaries)
`
`represents the locus of possible colors that can be achieved by blending them in
`
`varying proportions.”) (emphasis added).
`
`C.
`
`Phosphors Are Commonly Used to Create White And Different
`Light Colors
`
`A phosphor absorbs light of one color and emits light of a different color.
`
`Ex.1003,¶31 . Because of this unique property, phosphors have been commonly
`
`used since at least the 1930s to mix colors. Id. Broadly speaking, this color
`
`mixing is accomplished by placing a phosphor over a light source where the
`
`phosphor converts a portion of the light emitted by the light source to a different
`
`color and the remainder of light is emitted unaltered. Id. The overall effect is the
`
`emission of light of different colors, which will be perceived by the eye as a
`
`mixture of these two colors. Id.
`
`D.
`
`In 1996, YAG Phosphors Were Well Known For Converting Blue
`Emissions To Yellow In Lighting Products
`
`In 1996, YAG was a well-known phosphor for absorbing blue light emission
`
`and converting it to yellow under harsh operating conditions. YAG was
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`discovered in the 1960s by G. Blasse and A. Bril, researchers at Philips Research.
`
`Id.,¶33. Two research papers published in 1967 describe core characteristics of
`
`YAG, including that it absorbs blue light at about 460 nm and provides “a bright
`
`yellow emission.” Id.
`
`Researchers thereafter combined YAG with blue light sources to make white
`
`light. Id.,¶34. For instance, in 1969, researchers at Bell Labs applied YAG
`
`phosphors to blue-light-emitting lasers, as reflected in the Pinnow patent. In
`
`Pinnow, the YAG phosphor absorbed a portion of the blue laser light to create
`
`yellow light, which then mixed with the remaining blue light to create white light.
`
`Ex.1022,5:64-70. A 1971 publication by the Pinnow inventors expl