`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: April 25, 2018
`
`
`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 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC and L G
`Sourcing, Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 6–11 (the “challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 B2 (Exhibit 1001, the “’631 Patent”). Nichia
`Corporation (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and
`35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the
`arguments and the associated evidence presented in the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we institute inter
`partes review of claims 1, 2, and 6–11, which constitute all challenged
`claims.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The ʼ631 Patent is asserted in Nichia Corp. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
`et al., No. 5:16-cv-142 (W.D.N.C.), Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Tech.
`Holdings, Ltd., No. 16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) and Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.). Pet 67.
`The ʼ631 Patent has been the subject of two previous petitions (“the
`previous ʼ631 Petitions”), IPR2017-00551 filed by Vizio, Inc., in which the
`Board denied institution and IPR2017-02000 filed by TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holding Limited, which was terminated pursuant to settlement
`before a decision on institution had issued. In addition, several IPRs have
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`been filed on related patents, including IPR2017-00552, IPR2017-00556,
`IPR2017-00558, IPR2017-01998, IPR2017-01999, IPR2017-02001
`(collectively “the Related IPRs”).
`
`C. The ʼ631 Patent
`The ʼ631 Patent generally relates to light emitting diodes used in
`devices such as LED displays, back light sources, traffic signals,
`illuminating switches and indicators. More particularly, the ʼ631 Patent
`relates to light emitting diodes for emitting white light. See Ex. 1001,
`Abstract; 1:25–31. The LED contains a light emitting component and a
`phosphor, where the phosphor absorbs part of the light emitted from the light
`emitting component at one wavelength and emits light at a different
`wavelength. Id.
`According to the ʼ631 Patent, there were problems in creating white
`light in the conventional way of mixing red, green, and blue light due to the
`use of separate light emitting components required to emit the three primary
`colors. Id. at 1:48–62. Some light emitting diodes, therefore, use only one
`kind of light emitting component of one color (such as blue light), and add a
`fluorescent material that absorbs some of this light and emits light of a
`different color (such as yellow). When the light emitted by the light
`emitting component is mixed with the light emitted by the fluorescent
`material, the result is white light. Id. at 2:23–29. The ʼ631 Patent
`specification notes that a fluorescent material that absorbs light of a short
`wavelength and emits light of a long wavelength has higher efficiency than a
`fluorescent material that absorbs light of a long wavelength and emits light
`of a short wavelength. Id. at 6:23–49.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`However, several drawbacks can occur with the use of fluorescent
`material in an LED. For example, exposure to high intensity light and high
`temperatures can deteriorate the fluorescent material, leading to color tone
`deviation, darkening of the fluorescent material, and increasing absorption of
`light. Id. at 2:30–59. Additionally, exposure to moisture from the outside or
`introduced during the production process can accelerate the deterioration of
`the fluorescent material. Id. at 2:60–64.
`To address the concerns described above, embodiments of the ʼ631
`Patent use a light emitting component that can emit light with high
`luminance at the appropriate wavelength range, and a fluorescent material
`with excellent resistance to high intensity light that can absorb part of the
`light emitted by the light emitting component and emit light at a longer
`wavelength. One embodiment of the light emitting diode of theʼ631 Patent
`is illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below with annotations indicating the
`elements corresponding to some of the features discussed herein.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Figure 1, with annotations showing a lead type light emitting diode
`according to one embodiment of the ʼ631 Patent.
`
`
`The embodiment depicted in Figure 1 employs an LED chip mounted
`in a cup of the light emitting diode. Id. at 5:39–41. The LED chip is
`capable of emitting blue light of short wavelength. Id. at 9:35–39. The cup
`is filled with a transparent coating material, which is then covered by a
`molding material. Id. at 5:41–46. The coating material and molding
`material may be different materials, or they may be made of the same
`material. Id. at 17:4–12. The fluorescent material may be contained in the
`coating material or molding material or both. Id. at 15:15–20; 16:64–17:4.
`To provide resistance to high light intensity and heat this fluorescent
`material comprises a garnet phosphor activated with cerium. Id. at 3:38–44;
`10:8–26. Further, to address concerns about exposure to moisture, the
`concentration of the phosphor can be varied so that the concentration
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`increases from the surface of the coating or molding material toward the
`light emitting component. Id. at 10:47–53. Such a distribution of phosphor
`concentration can be achieved by selecting or controlling the material which
`contains the phosphor. Id. at 10:57–60.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 2,
`and 6–11 depend from claim 1.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`1.
`A light emitting diode comprising:
`an LED chip having an electrode;
`a transparent material covering said LED chip, and
`a phosphor contained in said transparent material and
`absorbing a part of light emitted by said LED chip and emitting
`light of wavelength different from that of the absorbed light;
`wherein the main emission peak of said LED chip is
`within the range from 400 nm to 530 nm,
`a concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of said
`LED chip is larger than a concentration of said phosphor in the
`vicinity of the surface of said transparent material, and
`said phosphor diffuses the light from said LED chip and
`suppresses a formation of an emission pattern by a partial
`blocking of the light by said electrode.
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioners rely upon the following references:
`
`Designation
`Baretz
`Shimizu
`Matoba
`Pinnow
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175
`JP Patent Pub No. H08-7614
`JP Patent Pub. No. H7-99345
`U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478
`
`Ex. No.
`Date
`July 29, 2003 Ex. 1005
`Jan. 12, 1996 Ex. 1006
`Apr. 11, 1995 Ex. 1009
`Oct. 17, 1972 Ex. 1012
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`
`Reference
`Designation
`Nakamura Nakamura et al., High-power
`InGaN single-quantum-well-
`structure blue and violet light-
`emitting diodes, Appl. Phys.
`Lett. 67, Sept. 25 1995
`
`Ex. No.
`Date
`Sept. 25, 1995 Ex. 1015
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioners challenge claims 1, 2, and 6–11 of the ʼ631 Patent on the
`following grounds:
`
`Ground Basis
`1
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1, 2, 6, 10, and 11
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`§ 103
`
`7 and 8
`
`§ 103
`
`9
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 6–8, 10 and 11
`
`References
`Baretz, Shimizu, and
`Matoba
`Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba,
`and Pinnow
`Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba
`and Nakamura
`Matoba, Shimizu, and
`Pinnow
`
`G. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Citing its declarant, Dr. Eric Bretschneider, Petitioners propose that
`“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.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003, Bretschneider Decl. ¶ 75).
`Patent Owner argues “Bretschneider’s definition of the pertinent area
`in which a POSITA must be knowledgeable is facially overbroad, has no
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`factual basis, and is simply not credible.” Prelim. Resp. 28–30.
`Specifically, Patent Owner takes issue with Dr. Bretschneider’s proposed
`field of the ʼ631 Patent as overbroad for including “the entirety of ‘Optics’”
`which, according to Patent Owner, allows Petitioners to sweep in non-
`analogous art. Prelim. Resp. 28–29. Patent Owner argues “Bretschneider’s
`definition of a POSITA should be narrowed to require experience in the field
`of LEDs,” but does not offer an alternative description of a person of
`ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 29.
`The subject matter of white light LED devices in the ’631 Patent
`concerns aspects of electrical engineering (e.g., the control circuitry), optics
`(e.g., wavelengths of the spectrum to generate white light), and chemistry
`(e.g., the composition of phosphors to absorb various wavelengths and to
`cause fluorescence). Thus, persons of ordinary skill in this field are likely to
`have different technical backgrounds and professional experience. We are
`persuaded that Petitioners’ description of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`recognizes the wide range of backgrounds of persons working in the relevant
`field and is adequate for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`H. Claim Interpretation
`The ʼ631 Patent has expired. For claims of an expired patent, we
`apply a district court-type claim construction set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42,
`46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Only terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`
`1. Transparent Material
`The term “transparent material” appears in claim 1 three times, with
`the claim reciting “a transparent material covering said LED chip,” “a
`phosphor contained in said transparent material,” and “phosphor in the
`vicinity of the surface of said transparent material.” Petitioners propose that
`“transparent material” be construed as a “material that allows light to pass
`through.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner proposes “transparent material” be
`construed as “a unitary transparent material.” Prelim. Resp. 47–51. The
`dispute, as acknowledged by both parties, centers on whether the claimed
`“transparent material” can be made up of multiple layered transparent
`subcomponents or whether it consists of only a single unitary component.
`On the record before us, we agree with Petitioners that, as claimed,
`“transparent material” is not limited to a unitary transparent material. First,
`the Specification describes two components, a “coating material” and a
`“molding material” as both being transparent, covering the LED chip, and,
`in some embodiments, containing phosphor. Ex. 1001, 16:32–17:25.
`Nothing in the ʼ631 Patent indicates that both the coating material and the
`molding material together cannot be considered the claimed “transparent
`material.” Second, even when only considering the molding material, the
`ʼ631 Patent explains that such “molding material 104 may be made in a
`structure of multiple layers of different [transparent] materials being
`laminated.” Ex. 1001, 16:58–60. Thus, the ʼ631 Patent itself uses the term
`“material” in its singular form (as in “molding material”), to refer to multiple
`materials together, indicating that the claim term “transparent material” also
`may be referring to multiple transparent materials together, or at the least,
`should not be limited to referring only to one unitary transparent material.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioners’
`claim construction and construe “transparent material” as a “material that
`allows light to pass through.”
`
`2. Diffuses
`Claim 1 recites “said phosphor diffuses the light from said LED chip
`and suppresses a formation of an emission pattern by a partial blocking of
`the light by said electrode.” Petitioners propose “diffuses” be construed to
`mean “scatters.” Pet. 9. In the underlying litigation, Patent Owner argued
`“diffuses” should be construed as “scatters by reflections off of phosphor
`particles.” Prelim. Resp. 57. Patent Owner contends “a POSITA would
`understand the use of the term ‘diffuses,’ in the context of the claim and the
`specification, as requiring the existence of scattering by reflection off of
`phosphor particles.” Prelim. Resp. 58. Crucially, Patent Owner contends “a
`POSITA would understand that ‘diffuses,’ in the context of the claim, could
`not be satisfied by mere absorption of the blue light from the LED chip by
`the phosphor and reemission by the phosphor of light of a longer
`wavelength.” Prelim. Resp. 58.
`On the current record, we decline to limit the term “diffuses,” as it is
`used in claim 1, to require scattering by reflection. We see insufficient
`support for such a limitation in the claim language or in the specification.
`The claim simply states that the “phosphor diffuses the light from said LED
`chip” without stating that such diffusion occurs, even partially, by reflection.
`The ʼ631 Patent specification states “[t]he light emitting diode which
`contains the fluorescent material, however, can emit light uniformly over a
`wide range without forming undesirable emission pattern because the light is
`emitted after being diffused by the fluorescent material.” ʼ631 Patent, Ex.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`1001, 9:10–14. Again, the specification does not state that diffusion occur
`by reflection.
`Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioners’
`claim construction and construe “diffuses” as “scatters.”
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Issues under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`Patent Owner notes that this Petition is part of a “third wave” of
`petitions challenging claims of the ʼ631 Patent and several related patents.
`Prelim. Resp. 2–4. Being the third petition against the ʼ631 Patent, Patent
`Owner argues the Board should decline to institute inter partes review under
`§ 325(d) because “[a]ll but one of the asserted references were previously
`considered by the Office during initial examination or [proceedings relating
`to prior inter partes review petitions filed by Vizio, Inc.].” Prelim. Resp. 5.
`According to Patent Owner, Baretz, Matoba, and Pinnow, were “considered
`by the Examiner during prosecution” and by the Board in prior petitions.
`Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Pinnow, in particular, was not shown to be analogous art
`in prior petitions, and, according to Patent Owner, Petitioners “fail to present
`any substantially new arguments” on this issue in the current Petition.
`Prelim. Resp. 6. As for Nakamura, which according to Patent Owner was
`not before the Office, is used only in one ground here and is used only for
`teaching quantum well structure, which other Nakamura references cited by
`the ʼ631 Patent already disclose. Prelim. Resp. 6–7.
`Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc.
`v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the PTO is
`permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”). In
`particular, § 325(d) states that “[i]n determining whether to institute . . . the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`Director may take into account whether . . . the same or substantially the
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”
`Patent Owner is correct that this is the third set of petitions against a
`family of patents that include the ʼ631 Patent. The first set was filed by
`Vizio, Inc. and includes IPR2017-00551, IPR2017-00552, IPR2017-00556,
`and IPR2017-00558 (“the Vizio Proceedings”). The second set was filed by
`TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited and includes IPR2017-
`01998, IPR2017-01999, IPR2017-02000, and IPR2017-02001 (“the TCL
`Proceedings”). Of these prior petitions, two were directed against the ʼ631
`Patent: (1) IPR2017-00551, which was part of the Vizio Proceedings, and
`(2) IPR2017-02000, which was part of the TCL proceedings. The TCL
`Proceedings, including IPR2017-02000, were terminated due to settlement
`prior to any decision on institution. The arguments presented in IPR2017-
`02000 were not considered by the Board. Thus, the only prior petition
`against the ʼ631 Patent that we considered was IPR2017-00551. In
`IPR2017-00551, we declined to institute because Vizio had failed to comply
`with Rule 42.22(a)(2) because it lacked a detailed explanation of the
`significance of the evidence presented. IPR2017-00551, slip op. at 9–12
`(PTAB July 7, 2017) (Paper 9). Instead, the petition consisted of an
`omnibus claim chart with quotes from the references without sufficient
`explanation of how the references teach or suggest the claim limitations. Id.
`Therefore, although there is an overlap in some of the prior art presented
`here and that presented in IPR2017-00551, we did not address the arguments
`Petitioners now present, at least from a substantive point of view. Further, at
`least one reference, Shimizu, relied upon for each of the grounds asserted in
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`this Petition, was not relied upon in any of the grounds in IPR2017-00551 or
`the other petitions in the Vizio proceedings.
`The remaining petitions in the Vizio proceedings, IPR2017-00552,
`IPR2017-00556, and IPR2017-00558, were directed to different patents with
`different claims. For example, IPR2017-00556 was directed against U.S.
`Patent No. 7,7855,092 B2 (“the ʼ092 Patent”). The relevant independent
`claim in the ʼ092 Patent does not include either of the two limitations that
`Patent Owner explicitly disputes in this Petition (discussed below), nor were
`any of the claim construction issues presented here brought up in that inter
`partes review. The same is true of IPR2017-00558, which was directed
`against U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 B2. There is, however, more of an
`overlap in issues, subject matter, and prior art between the remaining
`IPR2017-00552 and this Petition. We declined to institute IPR2017-00552
`because that petition, like IPR2017-00551, lacked a detailed explanation of
`the significance of the evidence presented under Rule 42.22(a)(2). IPR2017-
`00552, slip op. at 16–19 (PTAB July 7, 2017) (Paper 9). We, therefore, did
`not consider the arguments and references from a substantive point of view
`in IPR2017-00552.
`We considered whether Pinnow is analogous to the LED based related
`patents that were the subject of IPR2017-00552, IPR2017-00556, and
`IPR2017-00558. In all of them, we found that Pinnow had not been shown
`to be analogous. Our determination, however, was based largely on the fact
`that Vizio had failed to provide sufficient analysis or explanation about the
`issue. IPR2016-00552, slip op. at 21 (PTAB July 7, 2017) (Paper 9)
`(“Petitioner, however, does not provide an analysis of why the ʼ959 Patent
`and Pinnow would be analogous under either prong of the test”); IPR2017-
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`00556, slip op. at 35 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (Paper 9) (“Petitioner discusses
`only the similarities of scientific principles and does not explain why a
`person of ordinary skill would have looked to combine the teachings of
`Baretz and Pinnow to arrive at the device recited in claims 1 or 12”);
`IPR2017-00558, slip op. at 14 (PTAB July 7, 2017) (Paper 9) (“As an initial
`matter we note that Petitioner has not provided any evidence or argument as
`to whether Pinnow is in the same field of endeavor as the ’375 patent”).
`Here, on the other hand, the Petition explicitly addresses the issue,
`comparing Pinnow to the ʼ631 Patent. Petitioners also present arguments
`referencing the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694
`(Fed. Cir. 2016), which were not before us in the Related IPRs. Hence, as
`with the other arguments, we have not addressed fully the arguments raised
`in this Petition regarding whether Pinnow is analogous art.
`Finally, Petitioners ask us to decline institution because Baretz,
`Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow were listed on Information Disclosure
`Statements during prosecution of the ʼ631 Patent. We have typically
`exercised our discretion to decline institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) when
`the cited art was previously presented to, and extensively considered by the
`Office during prosecution. See Kayak Software Corp. v. International
`Business Machines Corp., Case CBM2016-00075 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016)
`(Paper 16). In contrast, the references here were not applied against the
`claims of the ʼ631 Patent and there is no evidence that the Examiner
`considered the particular disclosures cited in the Petition or addressed
`arguments similar to those Petitioners now present before the Board as the
`basis for rejecting any of the challenged claims.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`For the reasons set forth above, we decline to exercise our discretion
`to deny institution of this Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`B. Equitable Considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner also urges us to deny this Petition under § 314(a)
`arguing the equitable factors weigh against institution. Prelim. Resp. 7–10.
`In Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-
`01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential), the Board identified
`seven nonexclusive factors that bear on the issue of whether the Board
`should invoke its discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review,
`based on a follow-on petition on the same patent, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a):
`1. Whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to
`the same claims of the same patent;
`2. Whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner
`knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have
`known of it;
`3. 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;
`4. The length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing
`of the second petition;
`5. 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;
`6. The finite resources of the Board; and
`7. The requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final
`determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the
`Director notices institution of review.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`General Plastic, slip. op. at 15–16 (citing NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec.
`Co., Case IPR2016-00134, slip op. 6–7 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 9)). In
`applying these factors, we consider not only the congressional intent that
`inter partes review proceedings provide an effective and efficient alternative
`to district court litigation, but also the potential for abuse of the review
`process through repeated attacks by the same petitioner with respect to the
`same patent. See Gen. Plastic, slip. op. at 18n.1 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-
`98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011) (“Allowing similar, serial challenges to the same
`patent, by the same petitioner, risks harassment of patent owners and
`frustration of Congress’s intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America
`Invents Act”).
`Patent Owner acknowledges that none of Petitioners were a party to
`any of the previous petitions involving the ʼ631 Patent. Patent Owner
`argues, however, that this factor weighs only minimally against denying the
`Petition because substantially the same art and arguments were presented
`before. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS
`Innovations, LLC, IPR2017-01305, Paper 11 (Oct. 17, 2017). Essentially,
`Patent Owner asks that we deny institution under § 314(a) for largely the
`same reasons put forth under § 325(d), even though none of Petitioners are a
`previous petitioner in either the Vizio proceedings or the TCL Proceedings.
`We decline to do so. The first factor of General Plastic asks whether the
`same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the
`same patent. The answer here is no. Patent Owner’s reliance on Samsung
`Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC is unpersuasive. In Samsung, the
`petitioner was a party to fourteen different inter partes reviews on related
`patents and had the opportunity to assert many of the same references, raise
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`many of the same arguments, and present the same or similar claim
`construction positions in those fourteen IPRs that it was seeking to raise
`again. See Samsung slip op. at 13, 18, and 22. Here, we have no such facts.
`Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution
`of this Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`C. Summary of Prior Art
`1. Overview of Baretz
`Baretz relates generally to a light emitting assembly comprising a
`solid state device, such as a semiconductor light emitting diode, and a
`luminophoric medium, such as phosphor. Ex. 1005, 7:8–18. The light
`emitting diode emits light at a relatively shorter wavelength, such as
`monochromatic blue or ultraviolet light, and the luminophoric medium
`absorbs the shorter wavelength light, down-converts it to yield longer
`wavelength light that appears as white light. Id. at 7:13–27.
`Baretz’s light emitting assembly is depicted in Figure 1, reproduced
`below with annotations.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Baretz, with annotations identifying features discussed herein,
`depicting white light emitting diode assembly according to one embodiment
`of Baretz.
`
`
`Baretz’s light emitting assembly comprises an enclosing wall (7)
`defining a light transmissive enclosure (11) that may be formed of any
`suitable light transmissive material, such as translucent polymer or glass. Id.
`at 8:60–64. The light transmissive enclosure houses a light emitting diode
`die (13) which emits blue or UV light. Id. at 8:64–9:4, 9:10–13. The
`enclosure (11) is filled with a down-converting medium (20) such as
`fluorescer and/or phosphor that down-converts the light emitted by the LED
`to a longer wavelength so that light output appears to be white light. Id. at
`9:4–9.
`
`2. Overview of Shimizu
`Shimizu relates generally to sheet-shaped light source used in displays
`of notebook computers and the like. In particular, Shimizu discloses a sheet-
`shaped light source consisting of a blue LED that is used for white light
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`emission. Figure 2 of Shimizu, reproduced below with annotations,
`illustrates an embodiment of the sheet-shaped light source.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is an annotated schematic cross-section of Shimizu’s
`sheet-shaped light source.
`
`Shimizu describes the sheet-shaped light source as having a blue
`LED (1) connected to a transparent light guide panel (2). Id. ¶ 6. Light
`from the blue LED is repeatedly reflected within the light guide panel. This
`light is scattered by the diffusion layer of the light guide panel and part of
`the light is absorbed by the fluorescent light layer (5). When it is absorbed,
`the wavelength of the light is modified and the light is then re-radiated out,
`enabling a mixing of light colors. Id. ¶ 10.
`
`3. Overview of Pinnow
`Pinnow generally relates to projection laser display systems that
`produce black and white images from black and blue images. Ex. 1012,
`1:5–7. The system includes a laser that emits light at a shorter wavelength
`and a phosphorescent screen of cerium-activated garnet that, when energized
`by the laser, emits light at a longer wavelength than the laser light. Id. at
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`1:33–43. Figure 2 of Pinnow illustrates an embodiment of the laser display
`system and is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 of Pinnow depicting an embodiment of
`Pinnow’s laser display system
`Pinnow discloses that the laser may be an argon-ion laser which emits
`light at 4,880 Å (488 nm) or a cadmium-ion laser that emits light at 4,416 Å
`(442 nm). Id. at 1:44–47; 2:19–26. Pinnow further discloses that the
`cerium-activated phosphor emits light centering about 5,500 Å (550 nm).
`Id. at 1:47–48; 2:12–16. Figure 1 of Pinnow, below, illustrates a plot of the
`emission spectra of the laser and phosphorescent screen.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Pinnow depicting the emission spectra of the laser
`and of the phosphorescent screen.
`
`4. Overview of Matoba
`Matoba relates generally to an LED that absorbs and converts a
`wavelength of light emitted by a light-emitting chip. Ex. 1009 ¶ 1. The
`LED includes a light-emitting chip that is disposed of in a cup and is sealed
`by a first resin that fills the inside of the cup and a second resin that encloses
`the first resin. Id. ¶ 6. The first resin contains a fluorescent substance that
`converts the wavelength of light emitted by the light-emitting chip. Id. ¶ 9.
`The second resin may be made of the same material as the first resin, but
`may not contain any fluorescent material. Id ¶ 10.
`The Figure below illustrates an embodiment of Matoba’s LED with
`annotations indicating which elements correspond to certain features
`discussed above.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Matoba, with annotations, illustrating an embodiment of
`Matoba’s LED.
`
`5. Overview of Nakamura
`Nakamura discloses high-power blue and violet light emitting diodes
`by using an InGaN single-quantum-well structure. Nakamura Abstract.
`Nakamura’s single-quantum-well structure blue LED device is depicted in
`Figure 1 of Nakamura, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00066
`Patent 7,915,631 B2
`Figure 1 of Nakamura depicts a single-quantum-well blue
`LED device structure
`
`D. Analysis of Ground 1
`Petitioners contend independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 6,
`10, and 11 would have been obvious over Baretz, Shimizu, and Matoba.
`Pet. 10.
`
`1. Claim 1
`Claim 1 recites “A light emitting diode comprising: an LED chip
`having an electrode; a transparent material covering said LED chip.”
`Petitioners argue Baretz’s Figure 1 and its associated description teaches a
`light emitting diode as a “white light emitting diode assembly” (Pet. 22–23
`citing (Baretz, Ex. 1005, 8:58–62)) that comprises an LED chip having an
`electrode, in the form of “a solid state device coupleable with a power
`supply” (Pet. 23–24 citing (Ex. 1005, Abstract 1:6–8, 8:58–62)), with a
`transparent material covering the LED chip described as “a light
`transmissive enclosure . . . may be formed of any suitable material having a
`light-transmissive character, such as a clear or translucent polymer, or a
`glass material” (Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:58–67, Fig. 1)).
`Claim 1 further recites “a phosphor contained in said transparent
`material and absorbing a part of light emitted by said LED chip and emitting
`light of wavelength different from that of the absorbed light.” Petitioners
`argue Baretz’s “light transmissive enclosure . . . filled with a suitable down
`converting material, e.g., . . .