Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., et al.
`2:19-cv-152
`April 7, 2020
`Defendants’ Claim Construction Presentation
`
`11
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., v Solas OLED Ltd.
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2020-00320
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
