Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 12949
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00152-JRG
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Solas’s Brief Regarding Disputed Constructions in the ’450 Patent
`
`(Dkt. No. 250) and Defendants’ Supplemental Claim Construction Brief Regarding the Terms
`
`“said active elements” and “cover” in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,072,450 Patent (Dkt. No. 251).
`
`Having considered the briefing and the Parties’ arguments at the Pretrial Conference, the Court is
`
`of the opinion that “said active elements” does not need construction and that “cover” is hereby
`
`construed as “lie over the surface of.”
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas”) alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,072,450 (the
`
`“’450 Patent”), as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,446,338 and 9,256,311. The disputed terms at issue
`
`relate only to the ’450 Patent.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’450 Patent recites:
`
`A display apparatus comprising:
`a substrate;
`active elements formed over said substrate and driven by an externally supplied
`signal;
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 1 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 12950
`
`an insulation film formed over said substrate so as to cover said active elements,
`said insulation having at least one contact hole;
`at least one first electrode formed on said insulation film so as to cover said active
`elements, and connected to said active elements through said at least one contact
`hole, said at least one first electrode being made of a material which shields visible
`light;
`an organic electroluminescent layer having an organic electroluminescent material
`formed on said at least one first electrode so as to cover said active elements and
`including at least one layer which emits light in accordance with a voltage applied
`to said at least one layer; and
`at least one second electrode formed on said organic electroluminescent
`layer which covers said active elements.
`
`
`’450 Patent at 17:50-18:3.
`
`
`Defendants Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (together, “Samsung”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of
`
`Noninfringement and Invalidity of the ’450 Patent (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 140). In the Motion,
`
`Defendants partially based their noninfringement arguments on assertions that (1) the accused
`
`products do not contain a “first electrode that covers said active elements in the display” (Id. at 4-
`
`13); and (2) Solas did not provide evidence that the alleged electroluminescent layer covers the
`
`active elements (Id. at 13-17).
`
`Prior to the September 8, 2020 pretrial conference, Solas only briefly raised any claim
`
`construction issue, and the issue that was raised was only in response to Samsung’s Motion. (See
`
`Dkt. Nos. 169, 211).
`
`However, at the September 8, 2020 pretrial conference with the Parties, the Court heard
`
`argument on Samsung’s Motion, and during the hearing, Solas raised the claim construction issue,
`
`citing O2 Micro Intern., Ltd., v. Beyond Innovation Tech., Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In
`
`fact, both parties at the September 8, 2020 pretrial conference told the Court they believed
`
`additional claim construction in the case was necessary. In response, the Court ordered the Parties
`
`to submit supplemental briefing on the claim construction of disputed terms “said active elements”
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 2 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 12951
`
`and “cover,” and heard argument on the construction of said terms at the September 9, 2020 pretrial
`
`conference.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`“When the parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of [patent] claims, the
`
`court, not the jury, must resolve that dispute.” O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1360.
`
`It is understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right which
`
`the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the protected
`
`invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`“In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`
`evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background
`
`science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva Pharm.
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (citation omitted). “In cases where those
`
`subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that
`
`extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we
`
`discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.”
`
`Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Id. A patent’s claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part. Id. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of dictionary,
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 3 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 12952
`
`which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. Id. “One purpose for
`
`examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.”
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips, the court
`
`set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims. In particular, the
`
`court reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
`
`the right to exclude.” Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To that end, the words used in a claim are generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning. Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim
`
`term “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at
`
`the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313.
`
`This principle of patent law flows naturally from the recognition that inventors are usually persons
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 4 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 12953
`
`who are skilled in the field of the invention and that patents are addressed to, and intended to be
`
`read by, others skilled in the particular art. Id.
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Id. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of “a fully integrated written instrument.” Id. at 1315 (quoting
`
`Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as being the
`
`primary basis for construing the claims. Id. at 1314–17. As the Supreme Court stated long ago, “in
`
`case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive portions of the
`
`specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and meaning of the
`
`language employed in the claims.” Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38 (1878). In addressing the role of
`
`the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier observations from Renishaw
`
`PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998):
`
`Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and
`
`intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim
`
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention
`
`will be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Consequently, Phillips emphasized the important role the specification
`
`plays in the claim construction process.
`
`The prosecution history also continues to play an important role in claim interpretation.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 5 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 12954
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because
`
`the file history, however, “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant,”
`
`it may lack the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Id. Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is relevant to the determination
`
`of how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention during
`
`prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., 6
`
`Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a patentee’s statements during prosecution,
`
`whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”).
`
`Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in
`
`favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en banc court
`
`condemned the suggestion made by Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319–24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of “focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent.” Id. at 1321.
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. Id.
`
`Phillips does not preclude all uses of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The court
`
`did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow when it considers disputed
`
`claim language. Id. at 1323–25. Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the appropriate
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 6 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 12955
`
`weight to the intrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim construction, bearing in mind
`
`the general rule that the claims measure the scope of the patent grant.
`
`III. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A. “said active elements”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“Two or more ‘active elements’”
`
`“Any and all ‘active elements’”
`
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 250 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 251 at 1-2).
`
`1. The Parties’ Positions
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’450 Patent, off of which asserted Claims 4 and 5 depend,
`
`recites:
`
`A display apparatus comprising:
`A substrate;
`Active elements formed over said substrate and driven by an externally supplied
`signal;
`An insulation film formed over said substrate so as to cover said active elements,
`said insulation having at least one contact hole; . . .
`
`
`’450 Patent, 17:50-56.
`
`
`The parties agreed on a construction at the prior claim construction hearing of “active
`
`elements” to mean “circuit elements that have gain or that direct current flow, e.g., transistors.”
`
`(Dkt. No. 99 at 7). Notwithstanding the previously construed term, the parties now dispute
`
`whether “active elements” must necessarily include all “active elements” in the accused displays,
`
`and how this affects subsequent instances of “said active elements.” Plaintiff argues that because
`
`the preamble of the claim recites “comprising,” the claim need not encompass every active element
`
`in the accused devices. (Dkt. No. 250 at 1). Defendants argue that (1) the active elements are all
`
`active elements in the accused display apparatus because the purpose of the invention is to prevent
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 7 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 12956
`
`light from hitting the active elements, and that purpose would be frustrated if some active elements
`
`on the device were not included; and (2) all disclosures in the ’450 Patent are of embodiments in
`
`which all active elements in the display are covered (see dispute on “cover,” infra). Both sides
`
`believe their proposals are consistent with the plain meaning of the claim term.
`
`Plaintiff cites Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc. for the proposition that a claim with
`
`“comprising” in its preamble is not limited to only the components recited. 405 F.3d 1367, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). In Gillette, the Federal Circuit held that a claim directed to a razor that recited
`
`“comprising . . . a group of first, second, and third blades” encompassed “razors with more than
`
`three blades.” Id. In so determining, the Circuit looked to the purpose of the invention and found
`
`that the principles of its purpose “could apply equally to four or five blades.” Id. The Court
`
`determines that even though “[i]t may be that a four-bladed safety razor is a less preferred
`
`embodiment, . . . a patentee typically claims broadly enough to cover less preferred embodiments
`
`as well as more preferred embodiments, precisely to block competitors from marketing less than
`
`optimal versions of the claimed invention.” Id. The Federal Circuit found that its interpretation
`
`of the claim was confirmed by the claim’s use of two open terms: “comprising” and “group of.” Id.
`
`at 1372.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Although the ’450 Patent does not recite a Markush group, Gillette is applicable to the case
`
`at hand because the Federal Circuit held that accused products may have a larger numerical
`
`quantity of recited components than those that actually are recited in the claim. See Gillette, 405
`
`F.3d at 1371; see also Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Intern., Inc., 246
`
`F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In the parlance of patent law, the transition ‘comprising’ creates
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 8 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 12957
`
`a presumption that the recited elements are only a part of the device, that the claim does not exclude
`
`additional, unrecited elements.”).
`
`The “said active elements” recited in the present claim must be present for infringement,
`
`but the claim is silent as to remaining active elements in the devices.
`
`The Court accordingly finds that there is not a claim construction issue as to the term “said
`
`active elements” and reaffirms the prior agreed construction of “active elements” as “circuit
`
`elements that have gain or that direct current flow, e.g., transistors” adopted by the Court. Further,
`
`the Court holds that Plaintiff may map its infringement read of the claim to a subset of the active
`
`elements in the accused devices.
`
`B. “cover”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“lie over the surface of”
`
`“cover in full the ‘active element’”
`
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 250 at 3-6; Dkt. No. 251 at 3-6).
`
`1. The Parties’ Positions
`
`Both parties now urge the Court to construe the term “cover” as an O2 Micro issue. Plaintiff
`
`argues that “as a matter of plain grammar and language, the transitive verb ‘cover’ captures ‘to lay
`
`or spread something over’ and ‘to appear here and there on the surface of.’”1 (Dkt. No. 250 at 4).
`
`Plaintiff further contends that the claim language bolsters its construction:
`
`an insulation film formed over said substrate so as to cover said active elements,
`said insulation having at least one contact hole;
`
`1 Citing Definition of “Cover”
`in Webster’s English Dictionary, available at:
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover;
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cover
`something”).
`
`the
`
`surface of
`
`(“to
`
`lie on
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 9 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 12958
`
`at least one first electrode formed on said insulation film so as to cover said active
`elements, and connected to said active elements through said at least one contact hole,
`said at least one first electrode being made of a material which shields visible light;
`an organic electroluminescent layer having an organic electroluminescent material
`formed on said at least one first electrode so as to cover said active elements ; and
`at least one second electrode formed on said organic electroluminescent layer
`which covers said active elements
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 250 at 4, citing ’450 Patent at 17:54-18:3) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that Samsung’s construction relies on the premise that total coverage is
`
`required to block out light from the active elements. (See Dkt. No. 250). However, the specification
`
`and Samsung’s expert clarify that the insulation film, second electrode, and EL layer do not shield
`
`light. (See Dkt. No. 250 at 4-5). Also, in connection with the phrase “formed over,” the term
`
`“cover” must mean to lay over on the surface of something. (Dkt. No. 250 at 5). The intrinsic
`
`record similarly describes these components—for example, the background describes a problem
`
`of a limited EL layer in which thin film transistors are not located, and therefore the ratio of the
`
`light emitting area to the pixel area is small. (Id., citing ’450 Patent at 2:32-37). The solution was
`
`to form the EL layer on the transistor layer to open up surface area. (Id.). The Abstract also uses
`
`“cover” in the context of cathode electrodes “formed above” the transistor layer. (Id., citing ’450
`
`Patent at Abstract).
`
`
`
`In an office action, the patentee described a set of first electrodes, an EL layer, and a second
`
`electrode covering a selection transistor and drive transistor, whereby light emission was realized
`
`at most of an area. (Dkt. No. 250 at 5-6). The office action described the layers of the first electrode,
`
`EL layer, and second electrode “placed above the active elements so as to cover the active
`
`elements.” (Dkt. No. 250-1 at 303).
`
`
`
`Solas cites Pioneer Corp v. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., 2007 WL 5688764 at *31-34 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Dec. 27, 2007), as a prior example of this Court construing the term “cover” to mean less
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 10 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 12959
`
`than total coverage. (Dkt. No. 250 at 6). Solas argues that Samsung’s arguments based on the
`
`purpose of the invention are not legally sound. (Id., citing Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264
`
`F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Samsung’s own expert admitted that “’cover said active
`
`elements’ does not require shielding visible light.” (Dkt. No. 250-2 at 76:6-79:24).
`
`Defendants argue the Summary of Invention explains that the purpose of the invention is
`
`“to provide a display apparatus which prevents light from entering active elements such as
`
`transistors, to thereby avoid the malfunctioning of the active elements. (Dkt. No. 251 at 4, citing
`
`’450 Patent at 3:4-7). “In the display apparatus, the at least one first electrode is formed so as to
`
`cover the active elements,” and “[s]ince the at least one first electrode is made of a material which
`
`shields visible light, the light emitted by the electroluminescent layer does not enter the active
`
`elements, and therefore the active elements do not malfunction due to the light.” (Id., citing ’450
`
`Patent at 3:28-46). Samsung argues that “claim terms should be construed consistent with the ‘clear
`
`purpose of the invention.’” (Id., citing Cordis Corp. v. Medtronics Ave., Inc., 511 F3d 1157, 1179
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008); Reinishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998)).
`
`
`
`Samsung contends that in every embodiment, the active elements are completely covered
`
`by the first electrode—acknowledged by Solas’s expert Mr. Credelle. (Id. at 4-5, quoting Dkt. No.
`
`251-2 at 103:8-9). The specification repeatedly takes “cover” to mean total coverage. Because
`
`cathode electrodes are “easily oxidized,” “the dielectric film 18 is formed so as to cover the cathode
`
`electrodes,” and thus the covered electrodes “are not exposed to the air.” (Id. at 5, citing ’450
`
`Patent at 11:37-42). Since oxidization would occur with partial coverage, this must mean total
`
`coverage. The specification includes other similar examples. (Id., citing ’450 Patent at 5:45-48,
`
`Fig. 2; 14:35-37, Fig. 18).
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 11 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12960
`
`
`
`When the specification does refer to covering less than all of an object, it uses qualifiers.
`
`“Each cathode electrode 15 has an area and a shape…which are enough to cover the most part of
`
`one pixel area.” ’450 Patent at 6:32-36. “[T]he part except a projecting portion 40A is covered by
`
`the EL lower electrode 42.” Id. at 15:39-41.
`
`
`
`Samsung argues that Solas’s interpretation would render the claims indefinite, because
`
`there is no disclosure of how much partial coverage is necessary. (Dkt. No. 251 at 6). Samsung
`
`also argues that, because the term “active elements” is not limited to transistors, it is unclear how
`
`much coverage would be needed for non-transistor active elements. (Id.).
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Both parties agree that the plain and ordinary meaning should apply to the construction of
`
`“cover.” “Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary
`
`artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. The parties also agree that every
`
`instance of the term “cover” should be construed the same way. (Dkt. No. 250 at 3).
`
`First, looking to the language of Claim 1, the recitation of “an insulation film formed over
`
`said substrate so as to cover said active elements,” “an organic electroluminescent layer . . . formed
`
`on . . . so as to cover said active elements,” and “at least one second electrode formed on . . . which
`
`covers said active elements” indicates that “cover” applies more broadly than just the first electrode
`
`“covering” the active elements. See ’450 Patent at 17:53-18:3. Additionally, the claim language
`
`“formed over” weighs toward a construction that these layers lie over the surface of the active
`
`elements.
`
`Second, looking to the specification, it is further borne out that the term “cover” need not
`
`require full coverage. In the Background of the Invention section, the ’450 Patent states that prior
`
`to the invention “the light emitting area of each pixel in which a part of the organic EL layer 106
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 12 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 12961
`
`is located is limited to an area in which the thin film transistors T1 and T2 are not located, and
`
`therefore the ratio of the light emitting area to the pixel area is small.” ’450 Patent at 2:33-37. It is
`
`true that in the Summary of the Invention, the patent does say that “[s]ince the at least one first
`
`electrode is made of a material which shields visible light, the light emitted by the
`
`electroluminescent layer does not enter the active elements, and therefore the active elements do
`
`not malfunction due to the light.” Id. at 3:42-46. However, if the first electrode is singled out as
`
`the element that must shield light, it is not the case that the electroluminescent layer, insulation
`
`film, or second electrode must perform that task—and indeed, the specification does not say that
`
`they do. It therefore cannot be the case that “covering” the active elements means full coverage in
`
`order to shield light.
`
`In a preferred embodiment, “[t]he selection transistors Q1 and the drive transistors Q2 are
`
`formed under the cathode electrodes, . . . an organic EL layer 16 is formed on the cathode
`
`electrodes 15 and the interlayer insulation film 14, and a transparent anode electrode 17 . . . is
`
`formed on the organic EL layer.” Id. at 6:37-43. “The cathode electrodes 15 are formed of MgIn
`
`which reflects light. Therefore, the light emitted by the organic EL layer 16 . . . comes out through
`
`the anode electrode 17 without leaking downward . . . .” Id. at 8:49-54. This preferred embodiment
`
`therefore does not require that any element besides the first electrode perform any light-blocking
`
`function.
`
`Next looking to the prosecution history, the patentee stated that “since a set of first
`
`electrodes, an organic electroluminescent layer and a second electrode for one pixel cover a
`
`selection drive and a drive transistor, light emission is realized at most of an area . . . .” (Dkt. No.
`
`250-1 at 301). To distinguish from the prior art, the patentee also pointed to the disclosure of “the
`
`specific layer formation order . . . and the arrangement of the first electrode, the organic
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 13 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 12962
`
`electroluminescet [sic] layer and the second electrode which are placed above the active elements
`
`so as to cover the active elements . . . .” (Id. at 305) (emphasis added).
`
`Furthermore, Samsung’s own expert, Dr. Adam Fontecchio, admitted in his deposition that
`
`“[t]here’s no requirement that the EL layer shield light,” and that the claim “does not require” that
`
`the second electrode be made of a material that shields visible light. (Dkt. No. 250-2 at 76:6-11;
`
`74:14-75:9).
`
`Samsung argues that the purpose of the invention should be a factor in claim construction.
`
`However, in the absence of limitations recited in the claim language, claim terms are not ordinarily
`
`defined by the purpose of the invention. Ecolab, 264 F.3d at 1366; but cf. Laitram Corp. v.
`
`Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 858. Even if they were, the Court finds no inconsistency
`
`between what Samsung contends is the purpose of the invention, the first electrode blocking light,
`
`and the construction of “cover” as not requiring total coverage. There are elements of the claim
`
`that do not block light, yet are recited as “covering” the active elements: the insulation film, organic
`
`electroluminescent layer, and second electrode. ’450 Patent at 17:53-18:3.
`
`The Court finds unavailing Solas’s argument that cases interpreting the same term as used
`
`in other patents should influence the Court’s construction in this case. Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices
`
`Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A particular term used in one patent need not have
`
`the same meaning when used in an entirely separate patent, particularly one involving different
`
`technology.”).
`
`The Court rejects the construction proposed by Defendants, that “cover” should be
`
`construed as “cover in full the active element.”
`
`The Court accordingly hereby construes “cover” to mean “lie over the surface of.”
`
`
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 14 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00152-JRG Document 262 Filed 09/23/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 12963
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of the
`
`’450 Patent. The parties are ORDERED that they may not refer, directly or indirectly, to each
`
`other’s claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the parties are
`
`ORDERED to refrain from mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual
`
`definitions adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim construction
`
`proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court.
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2020.
`
`Solas Ex. 2006 - 15 of 15
`Samsung v. Solas - IPR2020-00140
`
`