`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR,
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PANEL REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`Background of the ’338 Patent ....................................................................... 3
`A.
`Summary of ’338 Patent ...................................................................... 3
`B.
`The ’338 Patent Claims ........................................................................ 5
`III. The Board Committed Reversible Errors in Finding the Challenged
`Claims Obvious .............................................................................................. 6
`The Board Committed Legal Error by Misinterpreting the
`A.
`Scope of the “Arrayed Along” Requirement in Limitation 1[c] .......... 6
`The FWD Should Be Vacated Because All Grounds in
`Samsung’s Petition Rest on The Board’s Misinterpretation of
`“Arrayed Along” and Are Unsupported by Any Other
`Interpretation ...................................................................................... 15
`IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Int'l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................... 12
`Omega Eng,g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 8
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 9
`
`Power Mosfet Techs. LLC, v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 12
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 9
`Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown,
`939 F.2d 1558 (Fed.Cir.1991) ...................................................................... 12
`United States v. Arthrex, Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1970 (June 21, 2021). .............................................................. 1, 15
`Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997) ................................ 12
`
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner Solas OLED, Ltd. (“Solas”) requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d)(2) of the finding in the Board’s Final Written Decision (“FWD”) that
`
`claims 1–3 and 5–13 of U.S. Patent 7,446,338 (“’338 patent”) are unpatentable.1
`
`FWD at 83. In particular, Patent Owner requests review by the Director and, in the
`
`alternative, panel rehearing under the Board’s interim Director review guidance2 and
`
`Arthrex FAQ A33 and in accordance with United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct.
`
`1970 (June 21, 2021).
`
`The FWD determined that claims 1–3 and 5–13 of the ’338 patent were
`
`unpatentable under two grounds (Pet. at 10–11): (i) Ground I: Claims 1–2, 5–6, and
`
`9–11 are obvious over the combination of Kobayashi and Shirasaki; and (ii) Ground
`
`II: Claims 1–3 and 5–13 are obvious over the combination of Childs and Shirasaki.
`
`But the Board’s erroneous conclusions rested on a misinterpretation of the scope of
`
`limitation 1[c] and applied an incorrectly broad interpretation of the parties’
`
`construction of the key terms in 1[c].
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Board’s interim review process, the Director is being notified
`of this Request via email to Director_PTABDecision_Review@uspto.gov.
`
`2 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appealboard/
`procedures/uspto-implementation-interim-director-review.
`
` 3
`
` https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`board/procedures/arthrexqas
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`The parties’ agreed claim construction does not and cannot support this overly
`
`broad interpretation, for at least two reasons. First, the Board’s misinterpretation of
`
`limitation 1[c] is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the “arrayed along.” But the
`
`Board did not give “arrayed along” its plain meaning. Instead, the Board interpreted
`
`“arrayed along” in an overly broad manner—and one that is inconsistent with its
`
`plain meaning. The FWD only confirms this error. As the Board stated in its FWD,
`
`the evidence in the proceeding supported a plain meaning of “arrayed along” that
`
`required a showing that the pixel electrodes are arrayed in a manner that puts them
`
`“in a line matching the length or direction of” the interconnections. FWD at 23. And
`
`uncontradicted evidence further confirmed the pixel electrodes must be “in a line
`
`next to” the interconnections. Despite this, the Board erroneously held that this plain
`
`meaning “do[es] not preclude” an interpretation, like Samsung’s, in which “an
`
`arrangement of the electrodes with respect to the interconnections [is] such that one
`
`is almost directly below or beneath the other. Id (emphasis added). That is not the
`
`plain meaning and wrong as a matter of law. Indeed, if the Board’s interpretation
`
`were correct, then the “arrayed along” requirement would be no requirement at all,
`
`because any orientation of the pixel electrodes would satisfy the requirement.
`
`Regardless, and second, the Board’s construction rests on another error of law,
`
`because it would lead to a result in which any pixel electrodes that are “located
`
`between” interconnections would automatically also satisfy the separate “arrayed
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`along” requirement in 1[c]. In other words, Samsung’s claim mapping entirely reads
`
`out this separate requirements. That must be wrong, as a matter of controlling law.
`
`Moreover, there is no dispute that under Solas’s contrary interpretation of the
`
`limitation, which the Board expressly rejected, Samsung’s petition would fail. And
`
`thus, the Board’s misinterpretation of the scope of that limitation resulted in an error
`
`that was not harmless. The FWD should be vacated.
`
`II. Background of the ’338 Patent
`A.
`Summary of ’338 Patent
`The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or the Board.
`
`The ’338 patent concerns display panels with light-emitting elements, such as
`
`organic electroluminescent display panels. (Ex. 1001, ’338 patent at 1:14–21.) A
`
`commonly used organic electroluminescent display technology is the organic light
`
`emitting diode, or OLED. OLED displays contain a two-dimensional array of picture
`
`elements, commonly called pixels, that are made up of red, green, and blue
`
`“subpixels.” An example of this layout of sub-pixels is shown in the below annotated
`
`depiction of Figure 1 of the patent:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`
`
`
`More relevant to the instant Request, the patent specification describes a
`
`structure that implements a circuit of this type as a series of thin-film layers in the
`
`display panel, and the patent claims aspects of this structure. The patent explains that
`
`such pixel circuit arrangements for a display are formed “by stacking various kinds
`
`of layers on [an] insulating substrate.” (Id. at 8:21-22.) As shown in the exemplary
`
`figure below, the exemplary circuit elements are layers over insulating substrate 2
`
`to form the circuit arrangement. (Id. at 8:18-53.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`
`
`
`In particular, transistor array substrate 50 includes transistors 21-23. (Id. at 8:25-
`
`9:2.) And interconnections are formed to “project upward from the upper surface of
`
`the planarization film 33.” (Id. at 11:39-41.) Further, “sub-pixel electrodes 20a are
`
`arrayed in a matrix on … the upper surface of the transistor array substrate 50 (id. at
`
`11:50-52) and “organic EL layer 20b of the organic EL element 20,” i.e., a light
`
`emitting layer, “if formed on the sub-pixel electrode 20a.” (Id. at 12:14-16.)
`
`B.
`The ’338 Patent Claims
`Exemplary independent claim 1 recites a display panel comprising:
`
`[a] a transistor array substrate which includes a plurality of pixels and
`comprises a plurality of transistors for each pixel, each of the transistors
`including a gate, a gate insulating film, a source, and a drain;
`
`[b] a plurality of interconnections which are formed to project from a surface
`of the transistor array substrate, and which are arrayed in parallel to each
`other;
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`[c] a plurality of pixel electrodes for the plurality of pixels, respectively, the
`pixel electrodes being arrayed along the interconnections between the
`interconnections on the surface of the transistor array substrate;
`
`[d] a plurality of light-emitting layers formed on the pixel electrodes,
`respectively; and
`
`[e] a counter electrode which is stacked on the light-emitting layers, wherein
`said plurality of transistors for each pixel include a driving transistor, one of
`the source and the drain of which is connected to the pixel electrode, a switch
`transistor which makes a write current flow between the drain and the source
`of the driving transistor, and a holding transistor which holds a voltage
`between the gate and source of the driving transistor in a light emission period.
`
`III. The Board Committed Reversible Errors in Finding the Challenged
`Claims Obvious
`A. The Board Committed Legal Error by Misinterpreting the Scope
`of the “Arrayed Along” Requirement in Limitation 1[c]
`Under Ground I, Samsung’s Petition relied solely on a supposed “express”
`
`teaching by its base reference, “Kobayashi,” to satisfy all the requirements of 1[c].
`
`Likewise, under Ground II, Samsung relied on a supposed express teaching by base
`
`reference “Childs” to satisfy the same requirements of 1[c].
`
`But in reaching its conclusions in the FWD, the Board erred, as a matter of
`
`law, in holding that Samsung proved that Kobayashi or Childs satisfies limitation
`
`1[c]. The Board’s erroneous conclusions rested on a misinterpretation of the scope
`
`of limitation 1[c] and applied an incorrectly broad interpretation of the parties’
`
`construction of the key terms in 1[c]. Moreover, there is no dispute that under Solas’s
`
`contrary interpretation of the limitation, which the Board expressly rejected,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`Samsung’s petition would fail. And thus, the Board’s misinterpretation of the scope
`
`of that limitation resulted in an error that was not harmless.
`
`The parties actually agreed on the following construction for the key portion
`
`of limitation 1[c]. As the condensed table below shows, and as the parties agreed,
`
`that key portion has at least three separate requirements:
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Agreed Constructions
`
`“the pixel electrodes being
`arrayed along the
`interconnections between the
`interconnections on the surface
`of the transistor array substrate”
`
`“the pixel electrodes are [i] arrayed along the
`interconnections and [ii] located between the
`interconnections, and [iii] the pixel
`electrodes are on the surface of the transistor
`array substrate”4 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`But neither Kobayashi nor Childs teaches all three separate requirements of 1[c]; nor
`
`could they. And Samsung’s contrary position otherwise—which the Board
`
`accepted—wrongly renders some of the requirements superfluous and meaningless.
`
`A review of Samsung’s theories and the FWD proves this. According to
`
`Samsung’s Petition and the Board’s FWD, in Ground I, the pixel electrodes are the
`
`“first electrodes 117,” and the interconnections are the “auxiliary wiring elements
`
`118.” (Petition at 46–48.)
`
`
`4 Moreover, the parties agree that “transistor array substrate” means “layered
`structure upon which or within which a transistor array is fabricated”
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`
`As shown in Samsung’s annotated figure, its alleged “pixel electrodes” are
`
`highlighted in green, and alleged “interconnections” are highlighted in red. Thus,
`
`according to Samsung’s Petition and the FWD, the green electrodes above are
`
`located between the red interconnections above—and, separately, also arrayed
`
`along those same red interconnections despite being in differently horizontal layers.
`
`But the parties’ agreed claim construction does not and cannot support this
`
`overly broad interpretation. And the Board’s conclusion otherwise was legal error;
`
`specifically, one in misinterpreting the scope of limitation 1[c].
`
`This is true for at least two reasons. First, the Board’s misinterpretation of
`
`limitation 1[c] is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the “arrayed along.” The
`
`Federal Circuit “indulge[s] a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their full
`
`ordinary and customary meaning[.]” Omega Eng,g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d
`
`1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or
`
`during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The parties agree that neither exception applies here.
`
`Thus, the parties agree that the “arrayed along” must be afforded its plain
`
`meaning. And the parties further agree that plain meaning is not the same as—and
`
`cannot be satisfied by—merely showing another, separate requirement of 1[c],
`
`namely, that the pixel electrodes are located between the interconnections, among
`
`other things. Rather, showing that the pixel electrodes are also “arrayed along” the
`
`interconnections requires a different, additional showing.
`
`The Board did not give “arrayed along” its plain meaning, but instead gave it
`
`a meaning that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. Instead, the Board
`
`interpreted “arrayed along” in an overly broad manner—and one that is inconsistent
`
`with its plain meaning. That is error. E.g., Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1320 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (claim construction that is inconsistent with a term’s
`
`plain meaning is error, unless the patentee “acted as his or her own lexicographer”
`
`or made a “clear disavowal of claim scope.”)
`
`The FWD only confirms this error. As the Board stated in its FWD, the
`
`evidence in the proceeding supported a plain meaning of “arrayed along” that
`
`required a showing that the pixel electrodes are arrayed in a manner that puts them
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`“in a line matching the length or direction of” the interconnections. FWD at 22-23
`
`(emphasis added); see also https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/along.
`
`Uncontradicted extrinsic evidence further confirms the same meaning, namely, that
`
`the pixel electrodes must be “in a line next to” the interconnections. See, e.g.,
`
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/along (in a line next to
`
`something long) (emphasis added). And the patent specification confirms this as
`
`well. That intrinsic record describes the process of elements of the preferred
`
`embodiments being formed or arrayed alongside others. Ex. 1001 at 2:45–47; 5:61–
`
`6:2; 7:44–8:15; 10:48–11:65; 12:30–13:17; Figs. 1, 3–6.
`
`Despite all this, the Board erroneously held that this plain meaning “do[es]
`
`not preclude” an interpretation, like Samsung’s, in which “an arrangement of the
`
`electrodes with respect to the interconnections [is] such that one is almost directly
`
`below or beneath the other. Id (emphasis added). But placing the pixel electrodes
`
`almost directly below or beneath the interconnections cannot plausibly “array” those
`
`pixel electrodes “in a line matching the length or direction of” the interconnections.
`
`To further illustrate this failure, under Samsung’s interpretation and
`
`application of the claims, the gate and source elements 104 and 105—and even the
`
`drain 114—would all be arrayed along elements 118. Samsung admits that 117 is
`
`not coplanar with 118. Indeed, 117 and 118 do not share any overlapping layers in
`
`the formation of the entire package. Reply at 20. To the contrary, by design, under
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`the theory presented by Samsung and on which the FWD rests, elements 117 is
`
`several horizontal layers below from elements 118:
`
`
`
`Put differently, Samsung’s interpretation—which requires only that the electrodes
`
`elements 117 be at a lower layer, even those not adjacent to or not overlapping with
`
`any layer shared by any wiring elements 118—would indistinguishably render 104,
`
`105, and 114 all “arrayed along” 118. That does not fly under controlling law.
`
`Indeed, if the Board’s interpretation of claim scope were correct, then the
`
`“arrayed along” requirement would be no requirement at all because any orientation
`
`of the pixel electrodes and interconnections would satisfy the requirement. After all,
`
`logically, the only way to orient the pixel electrodes with respect to the
`
`interconnections would be to either: (a) line up the pixel electrodes in the same (or
`
`overlapping) horizontal layers as the interconnections; or else (b) place one in
`
`another layer, not in the same or even overlapping lines, including almost “directly
`
`below or beneath” one another. Everyone agrees that (a) meets the “arrayed along”
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`limitation, but the Board’s construction impermissibly also covers (b), which leaves
`
`practically no way to not meet the limitation. But this cannot be correct, because
`
`“[e]ach element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope
`
`of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`
`520 U.S. 17, 29, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997).
`
`Regardless, and second, the Board’s construction rests on another error of law,
`
`because it would lead to a result in which any pixel electrodes that are “located
`
`between” interconnections would automatically also satisfy the separate “arrayed
`
`along” requirement in 1[c]. In other words, Samsung’s claim mapping entirely reads
`
`out this separate requirements. That must be wrong, as a matter of controlling law.
`
`Indeed, any interpretation of the claims that “that render some portion of the claim
`
`language superfluous are disfavored.” Power Mosfet Techs. LLC, v. Siemens AG,
`
`378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R.
`
`Scientific Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1305, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (claim language
`
`incorrect as a matter of law because “[a]ny other conclusion renders the reference to
`
`30° superfluous”); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563
`
`(Fed.Cir.1991) (“When the language of a claim is clear, as here, and a different
`
`interpretation would render meaningless express claim limitations, we do not resort
`
`to speculative interpretation based on claims not granted.”).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`One look at the logical extent (or lack thereof) of the Board’s misinterpretation
`
`further confirms this. Under the Board’s misinterpretation, the pixel electrodes can
`
`be in any layer relative to the pixel electrodes. This results in application of the term
`
`that is clearly wrong and which rests on bounds far beyond the term’s plain meaning:
`
`along”
`“arrayed
`electrodes
`Pixel
`interconnections under Board’s overly
`broad misinterpretation
`
`Pixel electrodes also “arrayed along”
`interconnections under Board’s overly
`broad misinterpretation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully, none of the Board’s justifications for its misinterpretation of
`
`claim scope pass legal muster.
`
`For instance, the Board suggests that Figure 1 of the patent supports its overly
`
`broad construction because the “sub-pixel electrodes 20a are further described as
`
`being ‘arrayed in the horizontal direction’ between various interconnections[.]”
`
`FWD at 23. But while the quote it uses includes the word “arrayed,” it is noticeable
`
`missing the second piece of the phrase “along.” Thus, nothing in this sentence tackles
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`a key issue and requirement, that the pixel electrodes be “arrayed” not just anywhere
`
`or any way, but “arrayed along” the interconnections.
`
`The Board also points to a sentence relating to Figure 6 as supposed proof that
`
`its broad construction must be correct. FWD at 24-25. Not so. To the contrary, the
`
`sentence is directed to a single embodiment and, even then, it does not even mention
`
`the phrase “arrayed along.” Reply at 21. In any event, that embodiment, in Figure
`
`6, clearly does not support Samsung’s argument—it shows the green pixel electrodes
`
`sharing overlapping horizontal portions with a plurality of interconnections 90 and
`
`89—and even shows it right adjacent to the third interconnection 91:
`
`This cannot change the plain meaning of “arrayed along.” Thus, no matter what, this
`
`“justification” would not support Samsung’s theories or the construction applied by
`
`the Board. That construction is wrong as a matter of law.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`The FWD Should Be Vacated Because All Grounds in Samsung’s
`Petition Rest on The Board’s Misinterpretation of “Arrayed
`Along” and Are Unsupported by Any Other Interpretation
`As demonstrated above and by the FWD, there is no dispute that Samsung’s
`
`obviousness theories—across Ground I and Ground II—are premised on the Board’s
`
`interpretation of the scope of limitation 1[c], including, most notably, the “arrayed
`
`along” requirement in 1[c]. Because that construction is in error, the conclusion in
`
`the FWD must be vacated. See, e.g., Kaken Pharm. Co., Ltd., v. Iancu, 952 F.3d
`
`1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Because the Board’s obviousness analysis materially
`
`relied on its erroneous claim construction, we cannot affirm the Board’s
`
`unpatentability determination.”)
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the reasons above, Solas respectfully requests that the Director review and
`
`vacate the FWD or, in the alternative, the Panel rehear and vacate the FWD.
`
`Moreover, under Athrex, this review cannot be performed by Mr. Hirshfeld, who
`
`currently holds the title of “performing the functions and duties of the Under
`
`Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.”
`
`Though there is no doubt that Mr. Hirshfeld holds that interim title with the utmost
`
`integrity, skill, and experience, “[o]nly an officer properly appointed to a principal
`
`office may issue a final decision binding the Executive Branch…” United States v.
`
`Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (June 21, 2021).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Dated: July 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Neil A. Rubin/
`
`
`
`Neil A. Rubin (Reg. No. 67,030)
`Reza Mirzaie (Reg. No. 69,138)
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`pwang@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00320 (’338 Patent)
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW OR PANEL REHEARING
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on July
`
`7, 2021, by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to
`
`End
`
`system as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail
`
`to
`
`Director_PTABDecision_Review@USPTO.gov and upon the following attorneys
`
`of record for the Petitioner:
`
`David A. Garr
`Jeffrey H. Lerner
`Jared Frisch
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: 202-662-6000
`Email: dgarr@cov.com
`Email: jlerner@cov.com
`Email: jfrisch@cov.com
`
`Peter P. Chen
`Robert T. Haslam
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: 650-632-4700
`Email: pchen@cov.com
`Email: rhaslam@cov.com
`
`Email: Samsung-Solas@cov.com
`
`
`Dated: July 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Neil A. Rubin/
`Neil A. Rubin (Reg. No. 67,030)
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
