`2:19-cv-152
`April 7, 2020
`Defendants’ Claim Construction Presentation
`
`11
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,256,311
`
`22
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“configured to wrap around one or more edges of a display” (claims 1 and 7)
`
`’311 Patent, Claim 1
`
`3
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“configured to wrap around one or more edges of a display” (claims 1 and 7)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“wrapped around one or more line
`segments where two surfaces of a
`display intersect”
`
`No construction required
`
`Disputed Issue
`
`1. Should the term “edge” be given its plain and ordinary meaning, as
`found in dictionaries, of a line where two distinct surfaces intersect?
`
`4
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction represents the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “edge” for three-dimensional objects
`
`Defendants’ Exhibit 12:
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
`Scientific and Technical Terms
`
`Defendants’ Exhibit 11:
`Concise Oxford English Dictionary
`
`5
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The specification’s depiction of wrapping around an edge supports
`Defendants’ proposal
`
`’311 Patent, Fig. 7 (annotated)
`
`6
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Consistent with the plain meaning, the specification distinguishes wrapping
`around “an edge” from wrapping around “a curved surface”
`
`’311 Patent, 7:55-58
`
`7
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The claims were allowed only after
`the “edge” limitation was added in prosecution
`
`Oct. 2011
`Claims filed without
`“edge” limitation
`
`Feb. 2014
`Argument in
`Response
`
`June 2014
`Amendment
`
`Oct. 2014
`Argument in
`Response
`
`March 2015
`Amendment
`
`June 2015
`Claims amended to
`add “edge” limitation
`
`Nov. 2013
`Claims rejected
`
`Feb. 2014
`Claims rejected
`
`July 2014
`Claims rejected
`
`Nov. 2014
`Claims rejected
`
`March 2015
`Claims rejected
`
`Sept. 2015
`Notice of Allowance
`
`8
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Wrapping around an edge versus wrapping around a curved surface
`
`■ Wrapping around an edge:
`
`■ Wrapping around a curved surface:
`
`9
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`An edge joins two distinct surfaces
`
`■ In 2-D
`
`■ In 3-D
`
`Top surface
`
`Top surface
`
`Side surface
`
`Image from Solas Reply Br., p. 9
`
`Edge (i.e.,
`where top
`and side
`surfaces
`intersect)
`Side surface
`
`10
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`1111
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“write current” (claim 1)
`
`’338 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`12
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“write current” (claim 1)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“pull-out current”
`
`No construction required
`
`Disputed Issue
`
`Based on the specification’s lexicography and the prosecution history,
`does “write current” refer to “pull-out current”?
`
`13
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The specification distinguishes the ’338 Patent’s “current control” method of
`setting pixel brightness from alternative “voltage control” systems
`
`Voltage Control
`’338 Patent, 1:21-41
`
`Current Control
`’338 Patent, 16:5-13, 16:46-50
`
`14
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The claim limitation was originally in a dependent claim, and was added to the
`independent claim to overcome a rejection
`■ Originally filed claim 1 did not recite a “write current”
`
`’338 Patent, Original Claim 2
`
`’338 Patent, Original Claim 1
`
`15
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The applicants revised the “write current” language during prosecution, citing
`as support disclosures explaining it refers to pull-out current
`
`’338 Patent, File History,
`Feb. 25, 2008 Amendment
`
`’338 Patent, File History,
`Sept. 26, 2005 Specification, 41:15-25
`Prosecution history is strong evidence of what a skilled artisan “would have understood disputed
`claim language to mean.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed.
`Cir. 2011)
`
`16
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The prosecution history shows that “write current” means pull-out current
`
`pull-out current
`
`’338 Patent, File History,
`Sept. 26, 2005 Specification, 41:15-25
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`17
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s expert agreed that the write current serves as a pull-out current
`
`pull-out current
`
`Defendants’ Exhibit 3:
`Flasck Depo. Tr., 21:15-22:4
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`18
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The specification defines “write current” as pull-out current
`
`’338 Patent, 15:34-54
`
`’338 Patent, 16:38-59
`
`19
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The specification consistently equates “write current” with “pull-out current”
`
`■ “Consistent use of a term in a particular way in the specification can inform the
`proper construction of that term.” Wi-Lan USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d
`1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d
`1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2014); SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187,
`1196 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
`■ Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143-45 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (construing
`term consistent with its “context [that] is maintained throughout the written
`description” and prosecution history).
`
`20
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The specification explains that the “pull-out current” also
`sets the “driving current” that results in light emission
`
`“driving current”
`
`’338 Patent, 17:5-19
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`21
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“the pixel electrodes being arrayed along the interconnections between the
`interconnections on the surface of the transistor array substrate” (claim 1)
`
`’338 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`22
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“the pixel electrodes being arrayed along the interconnections between the
`interconnections on the surface of the transistor array substrate” (claim 1)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“the pixel electrodes are arrayed
`along the interconnections and
`located between the interconnections,
`and the pixel electrodes are on the
`surface of the transistor array
`substrate”
`
`“the pixel electrodes are arrayed
`along the interconnections and
`located between the interconnections
`that are on the surface of the
`transistor array substrate”
`
`Disputed Issue
`
`Are the “pixel electrodes” “on the surface of” the transistor array
`substrate based on the plain meaning of the claim language and the
`uniform disclosures of the specification?
`
`23
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`24
`
`The structure of the claim supports Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`Transistor array substrate
`
`Plurality of interconnections
`
`Plurality of pixel electrodes
`
`1 2 3
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The written description uniformly supports Defendants’ proposed
`construction
`
`■ The specification describes the
`pixel electrodes as being
`located on the surface of the
`transistor array substrate, and
`uses similar language to the
`claim
`
`’338 Patent, 11:50-52
`
`’338 Patent, Claim 1
`
`25
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The figures support Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`Pixel
`Anode
`
`Transistor
`Array
`Substrate
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`26
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s proposed construction would render other claim language superfluous
`
`■ If, as Solas argues, the pixel
`electrode limitation required
`interconnections to be “on the
`surface of the transistor array
`substrate,” then the separate
`claim limitation that the
`interconnections “project from a
`surface of the transistor array
`substrate” would be superfluous.
`
`’338 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Defendants’ Exhibit 3: Flasck Depo. Tr., 67:14-18
`
`27
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s proposed construction would exclude
`the preferred embodiment described in the specification
`
`■ Interconnection 91 (blue) is not “on the surface of” the transistor array substrate
`(purple), but rather is formed on the surface of an insulating line 61 (red):
`
`’338 Patent, 10:48-54
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`28
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas previously recognized the claim means that the
`pixel electrode is on the surface of the transistor array substrate
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – Defendants’ Ex. 5 at 50 (SOLAS_SAMSUNG_0005310-12)
`
`29
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“transistor array substrate” (claim 1)
`
`’338 Patent,
`Claim 1
`
`30
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“transistor array substrate” (claim 1)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“a layered structure composed of a
`bottom insulating layer through a
`topmost layer on whose upper surface
`[pixel] electrodes are formed, which
`contains an array of transistors”
`
`“layered structure upon which or
`within which a transistor array is
`fabricated”
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`1. Are the transistors contained within the transistor array substrate?
`
`2. Which layers of a display panel constitute the “transistor array
`substrate”?
`
`31
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The claim language specifies that the transistors
`are contained in the transistor array substrate
`
`’338 Patent, Claim 1
`
`32
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s proposed construction of “transistor array substrate” inappropriately
`encompasses layered structures that contain no transistors
`
`Solas’s expert declaration concedes,
`however, that the transistor array
`substrate contains a transistor array
`
`Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1: Flasck Decl., ¶ 30
`
`Defendants’ Exhibit 3: Flasck Dep. Tr., 64:17-65:8
`
`33
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposal aligns with the specification’s
`description of the “transistor array substrate”
`
`’338 Patent, 10:42-47
`
`’338 Patent, 11:50-55
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`34
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposal encompasses all disclosed embodiments
`
`■ In the alternative embodiment
`described at 11:66-12:5, the
`“reflecting film” formed on the
`surface of planarization layer 33
`would be the top layer of the
`transistor array substrate
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`’338 Patent, 11:66-12:5
`
`35
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s expert conceded that multiple different combinations of layers in the
`same display panel could meet Solas’s proposed construction
`
`Defendants’ Exhibit 3:
`Flasck Depo. Tr., 68:22-69:11 (objection omitted)
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`36
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s construction fails to indicate which set of layers in an OLED
`structure constitute the “transistor array substrate”
`Under Solas’s proposal, alternative combinations of layers in the same display panel could
`be called the “transistor array substrate,” making the claim indefinite. Examples include:
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`37
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s construction would exclude the top layer of the “transistor array
`substrate 50” of the preferred embodiment
`
`■ Planarization layer 33 is not a
`structure “upon which or within which
`a transistor array is fabricated”
`■ Yet, the specification explicitly states
`that planarization layer 33 is part of
`the transistor array substrate
`
`
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`’338 Patent, 10:42-47
`
`38
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s prior interpretation of “transistor array substrate” accords with
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – Defendants’ Ex. 5 (SOLAS_SAMSUNG_0005279)
`
`39
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“project from a surface of the transistor array substrate” (claim 1)
`
`’338 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`40
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`“project from a surface of the transistor array substrate” (claim 1)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“extend above the upper surface of
`the transistor array substrate”
`
`Initial: “extend from a surface of the
`transistor array substrate”
`
`Revised (3/11): “extend from a[n
`external] surface of the transistor
`array substrate”
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`1. Does the limitation require the interconnections to extend beyond the
`outer surface of the transistor array substrate?
`
`2. Do the projecting interconnections extend beyond the upper surface,
`as taught by the specification?
`
`41
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s expert argued that layers fully embedded within the “transistor array
`substrate” “project from a surface of the transistor array substrate”
`
`Flasck Depo. Tr., 35:17-22
`
`Flasck Depo. Tr., 37:21-38:4
`
`Insulating Film
`
`TFT
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`42
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas acknowledges in its reply brief that the interconnect must extend
`from an “external surface” of the transistor array substrate
`
`Solas Reply Br. at 4
`
`43
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The interconnections “project upward from the upper
`surface of the planarization film 33”
`
`’338 Patent, 10:54-58
`
`’338 Patent, 11:36-41
`
`’338 Patent, 12:62-67
`
`44
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`The interconnections “project from a surface of the transistor array
`substrate” to prevent leakage of the liquid organic electroluminescent layer
`
`’338 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`’338 Patent, 6:24-30
`
`’338 Patent, 6:38-42
`
`45
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`Solas’s interpretation of “project from” before this litigation accords with
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – Defendants’ Ex. 5 (SOLAS_SAMSUNG_0005289)
`
`46
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`