`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.,
`LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, and L G SOURCING, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`B. 
`
`F. 
`G. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`The Board Should Deny Institution Under §325(d) and §314(a). ................... 2 
`A. 
`This is the third petition on the ’631 the Board has been asked
`to consider. ............................................................................................ 2 
`The Office previously considered the same or substantially the
`same references and arguments. ............................................................ 4 
`The General Plastic factors favor denying institution. ......................... 7 
`C. 
`III.  Technical Background ................................................................................... 11 
`A.  Nichia develops the blue LED. ........................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Researchers pursue the white LED using a 3-LED red-green-
`blue approach. ..................................................................................... 12 
`Nichia discards the 3-LED approach. ................................................. 14 
`C. 
`D.  Nichia uses phosphors with LEDs. ..................................................... 14 
`E. 
`Nichia develops a sheet-like white-light source using a blue
`LED and phosphors. ............................................................................ 16 
`Nichia develops a white LED. ............................................................. 19 
`Petitioners’ asserted history of YAG confirms that Nichia’s use
`of it in an LED was a breakthrough. ................................................... 23 
`IV.  The Petition Should Be Denied Because Petitioners Fail to Present the
`Required Graham Analysis. .......................................................................... 25 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 29 
`V. 
`VI.  Grounds 2 and 4 Should Be Denied Because They Rely on the Non-
`Analogous Pinnow Reference. ...................................................................... 30 
`Cree is irrelevant to whether Pinnow is analogous art. ....................... 32 
`A. 
`B. 
`Pinnow is not in the same field of endeavor as the ’631. .................... 35 
`C. 
`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 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`VII.  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 
`VIII.  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 
`IX.  Petitioners Have Not Demonstrated the Required Nexus for Osram’s
`Supposed “Simultaneous Invention.” ............................................................ 66 
`Petitioners’ Collateral Estoppel Argument Is Baseless ................................. 67 
`X. 
`XI.  The Supreme Court’s Pending Oil States Decision ....................................... 68 
`XII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 68 
`
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prod., 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) ............................................................... 8
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,
`872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 43
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 30, 35
`
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) ............................................................................................ 68
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................... 42, 43
`
`In re Cree, Inc.,
`818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................... 6, 32, 33, 34, 35
`
`Ex parte Cree, Inc.,
`Appeal 2014-007890 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2014) ............................................... 32, 35
`
`In re Deminiski,
`796 F.2d 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 35
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Pap. 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................ 7, 8, 9, 10
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 66
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Pap. 8 (Sept. 23, 2014) ............................................................ 27
`
`Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc.,
`61 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 13
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH,
`139 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 30
`
`In re Oetiker,
`977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 30
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 BV,
`IPR2017-01318, Pap. 12 (Nov. 8, 2017) .............................................................. 8
`
`Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01305, Pap. 11 (Oct. 17, 2017) ................................................... 8, 9, 10
`
`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) ........................................................... 43
`
`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) ............................................................. 5
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 42
`
`In re Wood,
`599 F.2d 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1979) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 34
`
`Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Pap. 13 (Sept. 6, 2017) .............................................................. 5
`
`
`
`STATUTES & REGULATIONS
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ................................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. §314 ................................................................................................. 2, 8, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. §325 ......................................................................................... 2, 4, 5, 8, 10
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.65 .......................................................................................... 26, 27, 42
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.107 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.120 .............................................................................................. 29, 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2005
`
`Description
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO,
`Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.) (Dkt. #1)
`(without exhibits)
`Complaint, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Technology
`Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.)
`(Dkt. #1) (without exhibits)
`Complaint, Nichia Corp. v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc. et al., Case No.
`5:16-cv-00142 (W.D.N.C.) (Dkt. #1) (without exhibit)
`EX2004 Defendants Lowe’s Companies, Inc.’s, Lowe’s Home Centers,
`LLC’s and L G Sourcing, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to
`Plaintiff’s First Requests for the Production of Documents,
`Nichia Corp. v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-
`00142 (W.D.N.C.) (dated May 31, 2017) (excerpt)
`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)
`Summons and Proof of Service, Nichia Corp. v. Lowe’s Cos.,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00142 (W.D.N.C.) (Dkt. #10)
`(Lowe’s Companies, Inc.)
`Summons and Proof of Service, Nichia Corp. v. Lowe’s Cos.,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00142 (W.D.N.C.) (Dkt. #10-1)
`(L G Sourcing, Inc.)
`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)
`
`EX2006
`
`EX2007
`
`EX2008
`
`EX2009
`
`EX2010
`
`EX2011
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`EX2013
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`EX2012 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993)
`(excerpt)
`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)
`EX2014 Memorandum Opinion, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681
`(D. Del. Nov. 28, 2017) (Dkt. #67)
`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)
`EX2017* Non-Confidential Joint Appendix, Everlight Elecs. Co. et al.
`v. Nichia Corp. et al., 2016-1577, 2016-1611
`(Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2018) (excerpt)
`EX2018 Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions, Nichia Corp. v.
`Lowe’s Cos., Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00142 (W.D.N.C.)
`(dated June 28, 2017) (excerpt)
`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)
`
`EX2015
`
`EX2016
`
`EX2019
`
` EX2017 contains pages of the joint appendix cited by the Federal Circuit in
`
`
`
` *
`
`Everlight (EX2016, 8 n.4): JA17581-82 and JA17600-08. Nichia notes that
`
`certain pages within those cited ranges, JA017601 and JA017606, were not
`
`included in the joint appendix, and, accordingly, do not appear in EX2017.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`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
`
`and 6-11 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 (“’631”), filed by
`
`Petitioners Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, and L G
`
`Sourcing, Inc. (collectively, “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 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; (ii) Petitioners’ incomplete obviousness analysis skips
`
`mandatory Graham factors; (iii) 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 (iv) 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 IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`II. The Board Should Deny Institution Under §325(d) and §314(a).
`A. This is the third petition on the ’631 the Board has been asked to
`consider.
`
`The present Petition constitutes the third wave of IPR petitions generated
`
`from the same joint defense group challenging the patentability of claims of the
`
`’631 and related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,309,375 (“’375”), 7,901,959 (“’959”),
`
`and 7,855,092 (“’092”).
`
`In early 2016, Nichia sued VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”) alleging that certain
`
`VIZIO LED televisions infringed claims of the ’631, ’375, ’959, and ’092 patents.
`
`EX2001. Later that same year, Nichia filed suit against TCL Multimedia
`
`Technology Holdings, Ltd. and TTE Technology, Inc. (together, “TCL”) asserting
`
`all four of the same patents against TCL’s infringing LED televisions. EX2002.
`
`Nichia also separately sued the Petitioners, accusing certain Lowe’s lighting
`
`products of infringing the ’631 patent. EX2003.
`
`First IPR Wave (VIZIO). On December 30, 2016, VIZIO filed four IPR
`
`petitions in which it challenged the patentability of all asserted claims of the ’631
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`and the three related patents. On July 6-7, 2017, the Board denied institution on all
`
`grounds of each of the petitions. EX1041-EX1044.2
`
`Second IPR Wave (TCL). On August 25, 2017, on the last day possible to
`
`do so without running up against the one-year statutory bar, and seven weeks after
`
`VIZIO’s petitions were denied,3 TCL filed four petitions with the PTAB
`
`challenging the patentability of all asserted claims of the same four patents as
`
`VIZIO and, as discussed below, based on the same or substantially the same
`
`references and arguments as VIZIO. IPR2017-2000; IPR2017-2001; IPR2017-
`
`
`2 In the litigation between Nichia and Petitioners, Nichia requested documents
`
`concerning Petitioners’ communications with VIZIO concerning the VIZIO IPR
`
`petitions. Petitioners asserted “the attorney-client privilege and/or the work
`
`product doctrine” and noted that they “do not have any non-privileged responsive
`
`documents prior to filing of the Complaint and will not log attorney-client and
`
`work product materials generated after filing of the Complaint.” EX2004,
`
`Response to Request 54; see also id., Responses to Requests 53 and 81-82.
`
`Notably, Nichia initiated suit against Petitioners on July 19, 2016. VIZIO filed its
`
`IPR petitions five months later.
`
`3 EX2005, 2 (showing August 25, 2016 service date for complaint).
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`1999; IPR2017-1998. Those proceedings are currently pending. The Board has
`
`not yet issued its institution decisions.
`
`Third IPR Wave (Petitioners). On October 12, 2017—the eve of their one-
`
`year statutory bar—Petitioners filed the present Petition seeking cancellation of the
`
`asserted claims of the ’631 “over the same art and substantially identical arguments
`
`presented by [TCL] in [its] Petition for IPR submitted in IPR2017-02000.” Pet. 1;
`
`EX2006, 2 (showing October 13, 2016 service date for complaint); EX2007, 2
`
`(same). Petitioners further suggested that they intend to move for joinder with
`
`TCL’s petition, if an inter partes review is instituted. Pet. 1.
`
`Including the present Petition, this defense group has now generated a total
`
`of nine IPR petitions for Nichia and the Board to address.
`
`B.
`
`The Office previously considered the same or substantially the
`same references and arguments.
`
`Given that this is now the third wave of petitions, and the third petition on
`
`the ’631, specifically, Petitioners should have at least attempted to distinguish their
`
`Petition over the art and arguments previously considered by the Board.
`
`Petitioners have not done so and cannot do so, and the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion to decline Petitioners’ invitation to institute an inter partes do-over. 35
`
`U.S.C. §325(d). Indeed, the Board has repeatedly denied institution when—as
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`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. 1, 14-15 (Sept. 6, 2017). In determining whether to deny
`
`institution, the Board “considers the relevance of any differences between the prior
`
`art and arguments presented in the petition and that were ‘previously . . . presented
`
`to the Office.’” Id., 11.
`
`All but one of the asserted references were previously considered by the
`
`Office during initial examination or the VIZIO proceedings.
`
` 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`
` 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. 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 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. 20-21, 47-50. The ’631 already cites other blue LED Nakamura references,
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`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.
`
`In sum, the same or substantially similar prior art was already considered by
`
`the Examiner and the Board, and the Board should decline Petitioners’ invitation to
`
`retread old ground.4
`
`C. The General Plastic factors favor denying institution.
`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
`
`
`4 Although not material to these arguments, Nichia notes that Petitioners falsely
`
`accuse the Board of inconsistent findings in VIZIO. Pet. 27. Petitioners confuse
`
`the Board’s finding that Baretz disclosed “a phosphor capable of absorbing a part
`
`of the blue color light,” with respect to the ’092, with the Board’s finding that
`
`VIZIO did not establish Baretz discloses a phosphor that actually “absorbs part of
`
`the light emitted by the LED, as opposed to all of it,” with respect to the ’959.
`
`Compare EX1043, 23, with EX1042, 17-18.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`best to benefit from prior invalidation attempts and deploy prior art they had in
`
`hand for months beforehand.5 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,6 Petitioners offer not one word of
`
`
`5 All the asserted references here were cited on the face of the ’631 and/or listed in
`
`Petitioners’ June 2017 invalidity contentions in the underlying litigation. EX2018.
`
`6 See Alarm.com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc., IPR2016-01124, Pap. 11, 5-7 and n.3 (Dec. 5,
`
`2016).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`substantive discussion to explain why the Board should allow Petitioners to repeat
`
`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.
`
`Second, the Board considers “whether the petitioner provides adequate
`
`explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed
`
`to the same claims of the same patent.” Samsung, 22-23. Petitioners here have
`
`provided no explanation at all. This, too, favors denial. Samsung, 22-23.
`
`Third, the Board considers its “finite resources” and need to issue final
`
`determinations within one year. Samsung, 17, 23. The Board should consider that
`
`permitting this Petition to proceed would encourage just this sort of gamesmanship
`
`among joint defense groups and increase the workload for the Board (and the
`
`unfair burden on serially-attacked patent owners), if it were subjected to waves of
`
`similar petitions iteratively challenging the same patents, with recycled arguments
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`slightly tweaked using prior Board decisions. Nichia respectfully suggests that this
`
`factor weighs in favor of denial.
`
`Fourth, the Board considers “whether the same petitioner previously filed a
`
`petition directed to the same claims of the same patent.” Samsung, 18. While
`
`Petitioners are not identical, given that the present Petition and VIZIO’s petitions
`
`present substantially the same art and arguments (see supra), this only “weighs
`
`minimally against” denying the Petition. Id., 18-19.7
`
`Nichia respectfully submits that these factors and circumstances as a whole
`
`weigh in favor of the Board’s exercise of its discretion under §314(a) and §325(d)
`
`to deny this Petition. The Board has cautioned against allowing petitioners “the
`
`opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions,
`
`using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of
`
`review”—the very same opportunity Petitioners unfairly attempt to exploit here,
`
`and should be denied. Gen. Plastic, 17.
`
`
`7 The Board has found two additional equitable factors to be probative only when
`
`considering successive petitions filed by the same petitioner. Samsung, 19-23.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`III. Technical Background
`Petitioners challenge the patentability of certain claims of the ’631, which is
`
`directed to white-light emitting diodes (“LEDs”). EX1001, claim 1.
`
`Nichia is a recognized leader in the LED industry. The ’631 stems from
`
`research Nichia performed in connection with its development of the first practical,
`
`long-lived white LED—technology still used today in a wide variety of
`
`applications. As described in the ’631, and summarized below, that achievement
`
`required Nichia to identify and solve a number of problems that frustrated Nichia
`
`and the research community as a whole for several years.
`
`A. Nichia develops the blue LED.
`The first visible-light LEDs were produced in the early 1960s and emitted
`
`red light. EX1003 ¶39. Development of the green LED followed in the early
`
`1970s. Id. But creating the blue LED was more difficult: researchers and
`
`scientists spent decades trying to come up with a viable blue LED. Id. It was not
`
`until 1993 that Nichia announced its researchers had developed a commercially-
`
`viable blue LED.8 EX2008, 15-16. And the 2014 recipients of the Nobel Prize in
`
`
`8 Petitioners cite a subsequent article by Dr. Nakamura published in March 1994 as
`
`disclosing this technology. Pet. 15.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`Physics included Dr. Nakamura, a Nichia team member at the time the blue LED
`
`was developed. EX2009.
`
`B. Researchers pursue the white LED using a 3-LED red-green-blue
`approach.
`
`After the achievement of the blue LED, researchers focused their efforts on
`
`using a blue LED to make white light. This was because researchers now had red,
`
`green, and blue LEDs, the light from which, when mixed, could create white light.
`
`EX1001 1:48-53. For example, at least as late as June 1994, Dr. Nakamura had
`
`been pursuing creation of white light with the combination of three separate
`
`LEDs—red, green, and blue. EX2010, 65-67.
`
`Petitioners’ suggestion that a previous Nichia expert in another case,
`
`Dr. Schubert, asserted that the announcement of the blue LED “gave everyone the
`
`incentive to move forward to create a simple blue plus yellow LED that emits
`
`white light,” Pet. 1-2 and 15, takes this snippet out of context and is misleading.
`
`This excerpt reflects an attempt by counsel to impeach Dr. Schubert using prior
`
`statements in an ITC case to which Nichia was not a party; concerned an unrelated,
`
`non-Nichia patent claiming a priority date that postdated the ’631’s priority date;
`
`and addressed the state of the art at that time. EX1035 146:4-148:14 (priority date
`
`being claimed in ITC was “20th of … September ’96”); 154:4-155:8 (“There was
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`no efficient, practical, useful white LED prior to the Nichia invention.”). He
`
`further testified that “it was [his] view that if it comes after the Nichia invention,
`
`it’s obvious.” Id. 154:4-155:8.
`
`Likewise, Petitioners’ reliance on Dr. Schubert’s testimony (concerning that
`
`ITC case) that “after the demonstration of the blue LED, the development of the
`
`white LED was unstoppable,” Pet. 2, is misleading. EX1035 153:13-22. It is
`
`again taken out of context, and Dr. Schubert clarified his meaning in testimony
`
`Petitioners fail to cite. EX1035 154:4-155:4. The quest for white LEDs was
`
`“unstoppable” in that, e.g., all three colors required to make white light were
`
`available as three LEDs that could be combined. Id. 154:20-22. That does not, of
`
`course, make all inventive and ultimately more successful ways to achieve a white
`
`LED obvious. Indeed, as Dr. Schubert explained, “the key step was missing.” Id.
`
`154:23-155:4.9
`
`
`9 This testimony was given in an ITC matter where Nichia was not a party and had
`
`not engaged Dr. Schubert: his statements were not statements he was authorized to
`
`make on behalf of Nichia, and are inadmissible hearsay here. See Kirk v. Raymark
`
`Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 147, 164 (3d Cir. 1995). While the Board took a different
`
`preliminary view of whether an expert’s testimony is a party “admission” in
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00066
`Patent No. 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`
`C. Nichia discards the 3-LED approach.
`The ’631 inventors observed a number of problems with the 3-LED
`
`approach. It required complex circuitry, as the electric power to drive them
`
`differed from LED to LED. EX1001 1:57-61. And the 3-LED systems did not
`
`produce the desired tone of white light due to variations among components, which
`
`could be exacerbated by their unsynchronized deterioration. Id. 1:53-57, 1:61-67.
`
`The ’631 inventors turned, instead, to the use of phosphors.
`
`D. Nichia uses phosphors with LEDs.
`The use of phosphors with LEDs was not new to the industry. At least as
`
`early as 1973, research groups had been using phosphors, e.g., with violet LEDs to
`
`convert the light emitted from the LED chip to other primary colors. EX1