UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00320
`Patent No. 7.446,338
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. An Factual Overview of the Intrinsic Record Not Mentioned By Respondents
`Reveals Several Meaningful Inaccuracies In Respondent’s Characterization of
`the Claims....................................................................................................... 3
`A. Petitioner’s Characterizations of the Intrinsic Record in Parallel
`Litigation Demonstrates the Critical Nature of the Claimed “Write
`Current” and Its Ability to Set The Brightness Level of Each Individual
`Pixel ........................................................................................................ 3
`B. Separately, Any Review of the Prosecution History Disproves Samsung’s
`Premise that Its Primary References and the Relevant Parts of its
`Secondary Reference Were Never Cited During Prosecution .................. 8
`III. Petitioner’s Two Asserted Grounds and References ..................................... 13
`IV. Ground I Fails as a Matter of Law Because Petitioner Presents No Evidence
`that the Asserted Combination Teaches or Suggests a “Switch Transistor
`Which Makes a Write Current Flow Between the Drain and the Source of the
`Driving Transistor” ....................................................................................... 13
`A. Petitioner Relies Solely on Kobayashi To Satisfy the Claimed “Write
`Current,” But Presents Zero Evidence That Kobayashi Teaches or
`Suggests Any Current, Let Alone a “Write Current” ............................. 13
`B. Additionally, Samsung Already Agreed “Write Current” Must At Least
`Require A Specific Current That “Sets The Brightness Of An Individual
`Pixel In The Display Rather Than Relying On A Voltage Signal”—But
`That is a Requirement Kobayashi Cannot Ever Meet ........................... 15
`C. Samsung’s Theory That Kobayashi Teaches a “Write Current” Runs
`Contrary to its Claim Construction Positions In Parallel Litigation—and
`Also Runs Contrary to the Board’s Recent Decisions ........................... 19
`D. Regardless, Samsung Cannot Ever Show the Claimed “Three-Transistor
`Circuit” in Element 1[f], Because Its Proposed Theories Eventually
`Contradict Each Other On One Element or Another in 1[f[ ................... 20
`V. Ground II Also Fails As a A Matter of Law, Because the Combination Fails
`To Teach or Suggest Any Construction for the Claimed “Write Current”—and
`Also Fails to Teach or Suggest Samsung’s Own Construction Of a “Transistor
`Array Substrate” ........................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`A. Samsung Exclusively Relies on Childs to Show the Claimed “Write
`Current,” But Childs Does Not Teach or Suggest Any Current, Let Alone
`the Agreed On Requirements for Any Construction of a “Write Current”
` 23
`B. Samsung’s Theory For How Its Proposed Combination Teaches or
`Suggests the Claimed “Transistor Array Substrate” Plainly Fails When
`Applying Its Own Construction for that Claim Element, Which Solas Has
`Agreed To ............................................................................................. 27
`VI. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01548, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. March 1, 2019) .................................... 19, 26
`Statutes and Regulations
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ..................................................................................... 15, 24
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................... 1, 3, 15, 24
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List for IPR2020-00320
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e), Patent Owner Solas OLED Ltd., hereby
`
`
`
`submits its exhibit list associated with the above-captioned inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338.
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0256617 A1
`2002
`Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`2003
`Defendants’ Claim Construction Presentation
`2004
`Solas’s Notice of Agreement on Previously Disputed Claim
`Construction Terms
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Samsung’s Petition presents two obviousness combinations—and each has
`
`very clear and specific holes that are fatal to its petition as a matter of law.
`
`With regard to "Ground I,” Samsung’s theory relies entirely on its primary
`
`reference, Kobayashi, to satisfy the “write current” requirement of the claims. the
`
`petition never identifies any actual current, let alone the claimed species of current,
`
`namely a “write current.” Instead, Samsung includes just one sentence in its brief
`
`that just says it is there, hoping everyone takes their word for it. This is also true of
`
`Samsung’s expert declaration, who also sidesteps any showing of
`
`this
`
`limitation. Beyond creating a hole that is impossible to fill, Samsung’s effort to
`
`sidestep this element is particularly surprising in view of their contradictory
`
`statements in parallel district court litigation, where Samsung has suggested that
`
`the challenged independent claim was allowed during prosecution because the
`
`patentee added the claimed “write current” element to it. At any rate, Samsung's
`
`single passing conclusion, just saying a “write current” is in Kobayashi, plainly fails
`
`to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art,” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4), as required by the statute and regulations that govern the petition.
`
`This alone already makes Ground I insufficient as a matter of law, as this Board’s
`
`precedent has repeatedly confirmed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`But the reasons for denying institution as to Ground I do not end at a
`
`mere failure to specify that element. Samsung could not ever show this element,
`
`even if it filed ten more petitions pointing to Kobayashi. On this point, Samsung’s
`
`petition does not address the proper construction of the “write current” claim
`
`element, but parallel district court proceedings confirm that any construction of the
`
`element could never be met by Kobayashi. That element has been the subject of
`
`claim construction arguments in litigation that is pending between the Patent Owner
`
`and Petitioner. And as Samsung correctly notes, the parties have agreed on at least
`
`one thing for this term: it requires pointing to a specific current that agree
`
`that “sets the brightness of an individual pixel in the display rather than relying on a
`
`voltage signal.” This creates another insurmountable hurdle for Samsung. Samsung's
`
`self-proclaimed “write current” in Kobayashi could not ever meet this requirement.
`
`Rather, precisely the opposite is true: Kobayashi is precisely the kind of display that
`
`relies on a voltage signal where the ’338 patent requires a “write current.” Under
`
`this Board’s decisions, Samsung’s attempt to sidestep claimed requirements and
`
`series of self-contradictions do not hold up.
`
`Samsung’s art and theories under Ground II fare no better and, in fact, suffer
`
`additional, fatal flaws. As an initial matter, Samsung is demonstrably incorrect that
`
`its primary reference in Ground II, Childs, was never cited during prosecution. It
`
`most certainly was. And Samsung is likewise incorrect to suggest that the examiner
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`never had the relevant portions of its secondary reference, Shirasaki, before her. We
`
`demonstrate that is also false.
`
`In any event, moving past these manufactured themes and plain falsehoods,
`
`on the claimed “write current,” Samsung’s Ground II has virtually the exact same
`
`fatal hole as with Ground I. Indeed, in Ground II, Samsung never even mentions a
`
`current in the sole reference it relies on for that claim element, Childs, let alone
`
`identify specify where [it] is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). And
`
`to be sure, Childs itself, does not mention, suggest or teach it, either. If we were to
`
`again apply the agreed requirements of the claim element, Childs also could never
`
`satisfy that limitation, for virtually the same reasons as with Kobayashi.
`
`And while one completely missing element is enough, Samsung’s Ground II
`
`actually suffers from at least one more. Samsung’s theory for how Childs teaches or
`
`suggests the claimed “ transistor array substrate” plainly fails when applying the
`
`exact construction for that element Samsung itself proposes in its petition—
`
`a construction which the parties also have agreed to. Using Samsung’s own prior-
`
`art mappings and theories, it becomes immediately apparent that its failure here is
`
`as plain as day.
`
`II. An Factual Overview of the Intrinsic Record Not Mentioned By
`Respondents Reveals Several Meaningful Inaccuracies In Respondent’s
`Characterization of the Claims
`A.
`Petitioner’s Characterizations of the Intrinsic Record in Parallel
`Litigation Demonstrates the Critical Nature of the Claimed
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`“Write Current” and Its Ability to Set The Brightness Level of
`Each Individual Pixel
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338 (“’338 patent,” Ex. 1001) has a U.S. filing date of
`
`September 26, 2005, and claims priority back a Japanese application filed on
`
`September 29, 2004. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim challenged by Petitioner.
`
`As Petitioner quotes, with black-and-white underlines for what they call the “key
`
`features,” the claim requires:
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`
`
`Though every claim element is obviously required, Petitioner’s underlining of
`
`three specific “key features” should not—and does not—deflect from all the others.
`
`This is especially true for one particular claim requirement emphasized by Petitioner
`
`as the key feature in parallel litigation. Emphasized by Patent Owner with the red-
`
`colored box above, this element requires: a switch transistor “which makes a write
`
`current flow between the drain and the source of the driving transistor.”
`
`In describing the prosecution history of issued Claim 1, Petitioner suggests to
`
`the Board that the Patent Office’s allowance of the claims during prosecution was
`
`based on the mere addition of a “holding transistor.” Petition at 20-21; see also id.
`
`at 21 (summarizing allowance based on patentee’s incorporation of “[i.e. the three-
`
`transistor pixel circuit]”). But in parallel district court litigation on the ’338 Patent,
`
`Petitioner recently told a somewhat different story—one that focused on the claim’s
`
`requirement that “a write current” flow between the drain and the source of the
`
`driving transistor.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`In parallel litigation, Petitioner explained the prosecution history more
`
`accurately than it does here. There, Petitioner represented that the Patent Office
`
`allowed the originally filed claim 2, but not originally filed claim 1, because it
`
`included the requirement of a particular current, namely, “a write current,” as
`
`shown in this slide from Petitioner’s Markman Hearing presentation, which
`
`maintains Petitioner’s own highlighting and emphases:
`
`Ex. 2003 at 15. To overcome the rejection, the patent incorporated claim 2 and its
`
`write current into claim 1 to get the application allowed:
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002 at 436. To use the Petitioner’s own words in the parallel litigation, the
`
`claim was then allowed because the complete, incorporated circuit from then-
`
`dependent claim 2 “uses a current, called a write current, to set the brightness of
`
`each individual pixel.” Ex. 2002 at 3. Petitioner continued, adding that “[t]his
`
`current-controlled structure differed from circuits that used particular voltage signal
`
`levels applied to the gate of the driving transistor, rather than current, to control pixel
`
`brightness. Id.
`
`
`
`Indeed, this premise—that the claim’s “current-controlled” circuit stands in
`
`stark contrast to “voltage-controlled” circuits that used a particular voltage signal
`
`level applied to the gate of the driving transistor—was the theme of their description
`
`of the specification as well. For instance, quoting the intrinsic record, Petitioner
`
`highlighted that patent’s use of the claimed “write current” to set the brightness of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`each individual pixel “distinguishes the ’338 Patent’s ‘current control’ method of
`
`setting pixel brightness from alternative ‘voltage control’ systems:”
`
`
`
`Ex. 2003 at 14.
`
`Petitioner’s contrary characterizations here are, indeed, noteworthy. This is
`
`particularly true in view of Petitioner’s theories of invalidity before this Board.
`
`Though not Patent Owner’s burden to bear, we nevertheless will demonstrate in this
`
`Preliminary Response that each of Petitioner’s invalidity grounds is based on a
`
`theory that completely glosses over ever showing a “write current.” And the reason
`
`is simple: no such current exists in either of the two primary references on which
`
`Petitioner’s theories—and their petition as a whole—depends.
`
`B.
`
`Separately, Any Review of the Prosecution History Disproves
`Samsung’s Premise that Its Primary References and the Relevant
`Parts of its Secondary Reference Were Never Cited During
`Prosecution
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`
`
`There are additional, noteworthy facts in the file history, which are relevant
`
`to the petition filed by Samsung. Petitioner’s false statements about the prior art that
`
`forms their grounds “Childs was not cited during prosecution.” Petition at 34.
`
`The petition suggests that it presents new prior art that was not considered
`
`during the original prosecution of the ’338 patent. It also insinuates that the
`
`applicants failed to timely disclose the Shirasaski “three-transistor pixel circuit”
`
`during prosecution. Both of these claims are false.
`
`The petition asserts that the Childs reference used as the primary reference for
`
`Ground II “was not cited or considered during prosecution.” Petition at 34. This is
`
`simply false. Childs is a PCT application with International Publication No. WO
`
`03/079441. Petition at 11; Ex. 1005 at 1. Precisely this publication number appears
`
`in the list of “Foreign Patent Documents” on page 2 of the ’338 patent:
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2. In addition, the face of the ’338 patent cites U.S. 7,358,529, a U.S.
`
`national stage application for WO 03/079441. Both of these Childs applications were
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`disclosed by the applicant in an Information Disclosure Statement submitted June
`
`16, 2008. Ex. 1002 at 193. A copy of the Childs PCT application relied upon in
`
`Samsung’s Ground II was submitted with the IDS and is contained in the USPTO
`
`file history for the ’338 patent. Ex. 1002 at 253–289. The examiner considered both
`
`Childs applications during prosecution. Ex. 1002 at 193.
`
`As for Shirasaki, the disclosure in this reference relied upon by Samsung is
`
`cumulative of references that were timely disclosed during prosecution. The only
`
`figures from Shirasaki cited in the petition are figures 1, 5A–B, 9A–B, and the only
`
`one of these figures reproduced in the petition is Figure 5B. Petition at 7, 28, 34, 53,
`
`54, 79, 80. At least four different references cited by the applicant during prosecution
`
`contain the three-transistor pixel circuits contained in these Shirasaki figures. Two
`
`of these references are “Shirasaki II” and its Japanese counterpart, which the petition
`
`acknowledges were disclosed in an August 5, 2008 IDS and considered by the
`
`examiner. Petition at 20; Ex. 1007, Ex. 1008, Ex. 1002 at 30.
`
`The same three-transistor pixel circuit structures were also contained in two
`
`patent applications disclosed in a July 27, 2006 IDS and considered by the examiner,
`
`WO 2005/019314 (“Yamada I”) and its U.S. national counterpart U.S. 2004/256617
`
`(“Yamada II”). Ex. 1002 at 190. A copy of Yamada I was submitted with the IDS
`
`and is contained in the USPTO file history for the ’338 patent. Ex. 1002 at 655–743.
`
`A copy of Yamada II is filed concurrently with this preliminary response as Exhibit
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`2001. Both Yamada I and Yamada II share inventors Tomoyuki Shirasaki and
`
`Hiroyasu Tamada with the Shirasaki reference relied upon by Samsung.
`
`Comparing the figures of Yamada II, for example, with those of Shirasaki
`
`shows that the “three-transistor pixel circuits” relied upon by Samsung were in fact
`
`disclosed in art that was timely disclosed and considered by the examiner:
`
`Yamada II, Figure 1
`
`Shirasaki, Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`Yamada II, Figure 6
`
`
`
`Shirasaki, Figure 5A/B
`
`Yamada II, Figure 12A/12B
`
`Shirasaki, Figure 9A/9B
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`Thus, contrary to Samsung’s false and irrelevant narrative, there is nothing
`
`new provided by Shirasaki’s supposedly relevant “three-transistor pixel circuits”
`
`that was not timely disclosed to and considered by, the examiner before the
`
`challenged claims were allowed.
`
`III. Petitioner’s Two Asserted Grounds and References
`The Petition asserts the following two “Grounds” of unpatentability:
`
`• “Ground I: Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-11 are obvious over the combination
`of Kobayashi and Shirasaki; and
`
`• “Ground II: Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are obvious over the combination of
`Childs and Shirasaki.
`
`
`For the reasons set forth below, both fail as a matter of law.
`
`IV. Ground I Fails as a Matter of Law Because Petitioner Presents No
`Evidence that the Asserted Combination Teaches or Suggests a “Switch
`Transistor Which Makes a Write Current Flow Between the Drain and
`the Source of the Driving Transistor”
`A.
`
`Petitioner Relies Solely on Kobayashi To Satisfy the Claimed
`“Write Current,” But Presents Zero Evidence That Kobayashi
`Teaches or Suggests Any Current, Let Alone a “Write Current”
`
`Independent claim 1—and every other challenged claim, which depends from
`
`it—requires “a switch transistor which makes a write current flow between the
`
`drain and the source of the driving transistor.” As noted above, this requirement
`
`appears in what Samsung calls element “1[f].”
`
`1[f] wherein said plurality of transistors for each pixel include [1] a
`driving transistor, one of the source and the drain of which is connected
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`to the pixel electrode, [2] a switch transistor which makes a write
`current flow between the drain and the source of the driving transistor,
`and [3] a holding transistor which holds a voltage between the gate and
`source of the driving transistor in a light emission period.
`
`For Ground I, Samsung addresses this element on pages 50–57 of the petition.
`
`There are two immediate and important conclusions that this section confirms. First,
`
`for Ground I, Samsung is only relying on Kobayashi. This is made clear by its
`
`discussion of Kobayashi itself and the fact that Samsung is consistent throughout its
`
`petition that Shirasaki is used in every instance to show a supposed “[3] a holding
`
`transistor which holds a voltage between the gate and source of the driving transistor
`
`in a light emission period” in claim element 1[f] above.
`
`Second, despite stretching for eight pages—in which they attempt to identify
`
`something in Kobayashi that is a supposed “driving transistor” connected to “switch
`
`transistor”—the discussion of this element is virtually silent on the “write current”
`
`limitation. But no amount of discussion on every other word in 1[f] can act as a
`
`substitute for a failure to show that Kobayashi makes a “write current,” as required
`
`in the claims.
`
`Indeed, aside from the section heading, the phrase “write current” appears in
`
`this discussion only once, as part of a lengthy quote of the claim language:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`Kobayashi also discloses “switching elements SW1,” Ex. 1003, ¶
`[0043], corresponding to the claimed “switching transistor which
`makes a write current flow between the drain and the source of the
`driving transistor.”
`
`Petition at 50 (emphasis added). But the petition never identifies any actual current,
`
`let alone what current in Kobayashi actually is the “write current” or explains how
`
`that current qualifies as a “write current.” Samsung has one sentence in its brief that
`
`just says it is there, hoping everyone takes their word for it. This is also true of
`
`Samsung’s expert declaration, who also sidesteps any showing of this limitation.
`
`But a single conclusory sentence just saying there is a “write current” in Kobayashi
`
`is insufficient as a matter of law. This is particularly true here, where there is not
`
`one, no matter how many sentences Samsung’s attorneys and expert could have
`
`added if given a second chance.
`
`Accordingly, the petition fails to identify “with particularity” the grounds for
`
`the challenge, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), and fails to “specify where each element of the
`
`claim is found in the prior art,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), as required by the statute
`
`and regulations that govern the petition. The petition fails to even raise a question
`
`on whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Samsung’s theory under Ground I
`
`could ever be successful. It should be denied for these reasons alone.
`
`B. Additionally, Samsung Already Agreed “Write Current” Must At
`Least Require A Specific Current That “Sets The Brightness Of An
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`Individual Pixel In The Display Rather Than Relying On A Voltage
`Signal”—But That is a Requirement Kobayashi Cannot Ever Meet
`
`Even if we were to take Samsung’s word for it that Kobayashi’s “switching
`
`elements SW1” makes some current flow, that is still insufficient to show the
`
`claimed species of current—which is not just any current, but rather a “write
`
`current.”
`
`Samsung’s petition does not address the proper construction of the term “write
`
`current.” However, this is a term that has been the subject of claim construction
`
`arguments in litigation that is pending between the Patent Owner and Petitioner.
`
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG (E.D.
`
`Texas). And the parties’ explanations and representations in that parallel litigation
`
`help illustrate the necessary distinctions between a genus of “any current” and the
`
`claimed species of a “write current.”
`
`Most notably, in its claim construction brief addressing the term “write
`
`current” in that case, Samsung correctly noted that while the parties disputed what
`
`structure or form a “write current” circuit must take, if any, they agree that a “write
`
`current must determine the brightness of an individual pixel in the display rather
`
`than relying on a voltage signal.” Ex. 2002 at 21. If this were not clear enough,
`
`Samsung went further to explain that having a “write current” requires a “current-
`
`controlled structure [that] differed from circuits that used particular voltage signal
`
`levels applied to the gate of the driving transistor, rather than current, to control pixel
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`brightness.” Ex. 2002 at 3. And in the slides that Samsung presented during the claim
`
`construction hearing, Samsung further explained how the term “write current”
`
`related to the use of “current control” for setting pixel brightness:
`
`
`
`Ex. 2003 at 14.
`
`The insurmountable hurdle for Samsung now is: the never-seen and never-
`
`discussed “current” Petitioners point to in Kobayashi cannot ever be a write current.
`
`Rather, it plainly is a “voltage control” system according to Samsung’s own
`
`description, which, as shown above, emphasizes that the “write current” cannot be
`
`satisfied in such systems, where only “a voltage of level representing the luminance
`
`is applied to the gate of the driving transistor through a signal line”
`
`But this is precisely the kind of system Kobayashi is. In portions of Kobayashi
`
`not cited by Samsung, which describe the very embodiments relied on by Samsung,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`Kobayashi makes clear that the level of luminance is not “set” or “written” by a
`
`current, as is required by a “write” current, but rather it is set by a voltage through a
`
`signal line. And that voltage is applied at the gate of “driving control element” SW2,
`
`because under Samsung’s characterizations of Kobayashi on pages 50-51 of its
`
`petition, that gate is connected to source of the “switching element,” SW1:
`
`The portion 109 b of the video signal line is electrically connected to the
`previously formed portion 109 a via the contact hole, thus constituting
`the video signal line 109. In addition, the portion 109 b of the video
`signal line is electrically connected to the drain region 112 of n-type
`TFT (SW1) via the contract hole, thus constituting the drain electrode
`131. Besides, the source electrode 132 electrically connected to the
`source region 111 of n-type TFT (SW1) via the contact hole is
`electrically connected to the lower electrode pattern 110 a of video
`signal voltage holding capacitor 110.
`
`Ex. 1003 at [0071-0074].
`
`As Samsung acknowledged before the district court, the claimed “write
`
`current” must be a current provided to the pixel to set the pixel brightness, not simply
`
`the driving current supplied to the light emitting element, as in the current that flows
`
`between the drain and source of driving transistor SW2 in Kobayashi. Even if we
`
`were to take everything Samsung says as true and imagine the current Samsung relies
`
`on actually exists and flows, it would, at most, be precisely a mere driving current
`
`supplied to the light emitting element. That still would not satisfy the claimed “write
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`current” limitation, as either party understands that term in the district court. Ground
`
`I must be rejected for this reason as well.
`
`C.
`
`Samsung’s Theory That Kobayashi Teaches a “Write Current”
`Runs Contrary to its Claim Construction Positions In Parallel
`Litigation—and Also Runs Contrary to the Board’s Recent
`Decisions
`
`
`As demonstrated above, beyond merely failing to show any current, Samsung
`
`never proposes a construction for the “write current” element it attempts to sweep
`
`under the rug. While this is fatal on its own, Samsung’s flawed theories here also
`
`contradict their claim construction positions—and agreed on aspects of what any
`
`construction of “write current” requires—in the parallel district court proceedings.
`
`Under other PTAB decisions, this series of events and contradictions gives
`
`rise to additional reasons to not institute. PTAB recently denied a petitioner’s request
`
`for inter partes review of a competitor’s surgical device patent, stating that the
`
`petitioner failed to provide a claim construction (as Samsung does here) necessary
`
`to meet its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is
`
`unpatentable. OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc., IPR2018-01548, Paper 9
`
`(P.T.A.B. March 1, 2019). The Board emphasized that petitioner’s failure to provide
`
`a claim construction was further compounded by the fact that the petitioner took an
`
`inconsistent position before the district court (as Samsung also does here) where it
`
`argued for a narrower construction. Given its inconsistent positions, the Board held
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`that petitioner should have provided an explicit claim construction or explained why
`
`the limitations are not subject to the narrow construction advanced before the district
`
`court. Id. The same is true here—and the same outcome should apply.
`
`D. Regardless, Samsung Cannot Ever Show the Claimed “Three-
`Transistor Circuit” in Element 1[f], Because Its Proposed Theories
`Eventually Contradict Each Other On One Element or Another in
`1[f[
`
`Samsung’s petition goes on to say that:
`
`The source of each switching element SW1 is connected to the gate of
`driving control element SW2 (thus controlling whether a current flows
`between the drain and source of driving transistor SW2), as illustrated
`in annotated Figure 1 of Kobayashi . . . .
`Petition at 50–51. Although the petition does not say this, let us assume for the sake
`
`of argument that the “current [that] flows between the drain and source of driving
`
`transistor” is what the petitioner intended to identify as the “write current.” Even if
`
`this current in Kobayashi were a write current, and even if the switch transistor made
`
`it flow in Kobayashi, the petition has failed to identify a write current in the proposed
`
`obviousness combination or to establish that switch transistor in the proposed
`
`combination makes the write current flow.
`
`The petition’s discussion of the current flowing between the drain and source
`
`and how it is controlled is directed to the two-transistor pixel circuit of Kobayashi.
`
`Petition at 50–51. But the obviousness combination that Samsung alleges satisfies
`
`the elements of claim 1 does not contain this two-transistor pixel circuit. Rather, it
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`“replac[es]” that circuit “with Shirasaki’s three-transistor pixel circuit.” Petition at
`
`54.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kobayashi pixel circuit (Petition at 51) Shirasaki pixel circuit (Petition at 53)
`
`The transistors in this “replacement” three-transistor circuit are connected and
`
`operated in different ways than those in Kobayashi’s two-transistor circuit. The
`
`(limited) discussion in the petition of currents in the Kobayashi pixel circuit does not
`
`apply to the Shirasaki pixel circuit. The petition alleges that Kobayashi’s SW1
`
`“control[s] whether a current flows between the drain and source of driving transistor
`
`SW2” because “switching element SW1 is connected to the gate of driving control
`
`element SW2.” Petition at 50–51.
`
`The petition does not specify which of the three transistors from Shirasaki’s
`
`pixel circuit corresponds to the “switch,” “driving,” and “holding” transistors of ’338
`
`claim 1. However, it appears that the petitioner may have intended that Shirasaki
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00320 POPR
`Patent No. 7,446,338
`transistor 11 be the “switch” transistor, transistor 12 be the “driving” transistor, and
`
`transistor 10 be the “holding” transistor. Petition at 52–53.
`
`If so, then unlike Kobayashi, the “switch” transistor of the proposed
`
`combination is not connected to the gate of the “driving” transistor, and the switch
`
`transistor does not “control” whether current flows through the drain and source of
`
`the driving transistor, in the manner described by the petition with respect to
`
`Kobayashi.
`
`The petition is completely silent on what the purported “write current” is in
`
`the combination, how that current actually satisfies the claim limitation “write
`
`current,” or how the switch transistor in the combination “makes” the write current
`
`“flow.” Accordingly, the petition fails to establish that the proposed combination of
`
`Ground I satisfies the “makes a write current flow” limitation and thus fails to
`
`establish that the combination satisfies any of the challenged claims.
`
`In sum, Petitioner Samsung does not and cannot present any obviousness
`
`theory, argument, or evidence that the above claim elements are satisfied. Its theory
`
`under Ground I should fail.
`
`V. Ground II Also Fails As a A Matter of Law, Because the Combination
`Fails To Teach or Suggest Any Construction for the Claimed “Write
`Current”—and Also Fails to Teach or Suggest Samsung’s Own
`Construction Of a “Transistor Array Substrate”
`
`As an initial matter, it is not true that Childs and the relevant portions of
`
`Shirasaki were never