`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`) Docket No. WA 19-CA-236 ADA
`)
`) Waco, Texas
`)
`)
`)
`) May 22, 2020
`
`SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`vs.
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`SONY CORPORATION
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`Ms. Andrea L. Fair
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`P.O. Box 1231
`Longview, Texas 75606
`Mr. Marc A. Fenster
`Mr. Reza Mirzaie
`Mr. Neil A. Rubin
`Mr. Philip X. Wang
`Russ, August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard,
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`Ms. Jennifer A.H. Doan
`Mr. Joshua R. Thane
`Haltom & Doan
`6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
`Texarkana, Texas 75503
`Mr. Joseph H. Lee
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, California 92626
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display
`Exhibit 1037
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01238
`
`Ex. 1037-001
`
`
`
`Appearances Continued:
`For the Defendants:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`2
`
`Mr. Blake R. Davis
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Mr. Gabriel S. Gross
`Mr. Douglas E. Lumish
`Mr. Chris Schmoller
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Proceedings reported by computerized stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Ex. 1037-002
`
`
`
`3
`
`THE COURT: Then, Suzanne, I guess you could call
`the case, please.
`THE CLERK: Certainly.
`Markman hearing in Civil Action 6:19-CV-236,
`styled, Solas OLED, Limited vs. LG Display Company, and
`others.
`
`THE COURT: I'm not hearing anything.
`THE CLERK: I apologize, you couldn't hear me
`call the case?
`THE COURT: I did hear you okay.
`THE CLERK: You did hear me?
`THE COURT: I did.
`THE CLERK: All right then. I'm out.
`THE COURT: Did you hear me ask for you all to
`announce?
`MS. DOAN: No. We did not hear that. We can
`make announcements.
`THE COURT: Okay. Please do.
`MS. FAIR: Good morning, your Honor.
`This is Andrea Fair on behalf of Solas, and I'm
`joined today by Mr. Reza Mirzaie, Mr. Marc Fenster, Mr.
`Neil Rubin, and Mr. Philip Wang. And we also have our
`client representative, Mr. Richard Tashijian, with us
`today. And we're ready to proceed.
`THE COURT: All right. Who will be speaking for
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:01:43
`
`09:01:44
`
`09:01:48
`
`09:01:49
`
`09:01:53
`
`09:01:59
`
`09:02:13
`
`09:02:17
`
`09:02:19
`
`09:02:20
`
`09:02:24
`
`09:02:25
`
`09:02:27
`
`09:02:44
`
`09:02:48
`
`09:02:52
`
`09:02:54
`
`09:02:55
`
`09:02:58
`
`09:02:59
`
`09:03:02
`
`09:03:06
`
`09:03:10
`
`09:03:13
`
`09:03:15
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-003
`
`
`
`4
`
`plaintiff?
`MS. FAIR: That will be Mr. Mirzaie. Go ahead,
`Reza. I'm sorry.
`MR. MIRZAIE: No. It's okay.
`Your Honor, this is Reza Mirzaie. I'll be
`speaking on behalf of plaintiff for the 137 patent. My
`colleague, Philip Wang, will be speaking on behalf of
`plaintiff on the 891. And my colleague, Neil Rubin, and
`Philip Wang will be splitting up the remaining patent, the
`068 patent.
`THE COURT: Okay. Lily, are you getting this?
`COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir.
`THE COURT: And for defendants.
`MS. DOAN: Good morning, your Honor.
`Jennifer Doan and Josh Thane for the LG
`Defendants and for Sony. And arguing today for LG and
`Sony will be Mr. Doug Lumish, Joseph Lee, Blake Davis, all
`from Latham Watkins. And also today, your Honor, Gabe
`Gross and Chris Schmoller are appearing for Latham
`Watkins, as well. And we're ready to proceed.
`THE COURT: Very nice.
`And I have -- I believe we got an e-mail from the
`plaintiff saying that they were okay with the Court's
`preliminary constructions. Let me hear from Mr. Mirzaie
`or Mr. Wang if that is incorrect.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:03:18
`
`09:03:19
`
`09:03:22
`
`09:03:23
`
`09:03:24
`
`09:03:27
`
`09:03:31
`
`09:03:34
`
`09:03:40
`
`09:03:43
`
`09:03:44
`
`09:03:44
`
`09:04:03
`
`09:04:05
`
`09:04:07
`
`09:04:09
`
`09:04:11
`
`09:04:20
`
`09:04:22
`
`09:04:26
`
`09:04:27
`
`09:04:30
`
`09:04:34
`
`09:04:39
`
`09:04:43
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-004
`
`
`
`5
`
`MR. MIRZAIE: This is Mr. Mirzaie.
`That is correct, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. And so -- and with respect to
`I'll ask any of the defense counsel, are there any of the
`claims -- Court's preliminary constructions that
`defendants find acceptable and do not intend to argue?
`MR. LUMISH: Your Honor, this is Doug Lumish for
`the defendants.
`I'll take that in two parts, if I may. There
`
`are --
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`MR. LUMISH: I think for most of the construction
`that you've proposed as tentatives, there are some
`suggested modifications that we would like to propose
`today. As far as terms we are not going to argue, we
`agreed with Solas that we won't argue the before-and-after
`term for the patterning on its own term, but we're going
`to submit those on the briefing, as opposed to submit to
`your Honor's tentative. We understand that that probably
`leads to the attentive. But instead of waiving our
`position, instead, we'll just submit that and not argue
`it, with your permission.
`THE COURT: Absolutely fine.
`MR. LUMISH: And I did want to mention, your
`Honor, we have a number of client representatives that are
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:04:48
`
`09:04:49
`
`09:04:50
`
`09:04:55
`
`09:05:00
`
`09:05:06
`
`09:05:11
`
`09:05:13
`
`09:05:14
`
`09:05:15
`
`09:05:16
`
`09:05:16
`
`09:05:19
`
`09:05:24
`
`09:05:27
`
`09:05:29
`
`09:05:34
`
`09:05:39
`
`09:05:41
`
`09:05:42
`
`09:05:46
`
`09:05:51
`
`09:05:52
`
`09:05:54
`
`09:05:54
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-005
`
`
`
`6
`
`either on the Zoom or on the phone. I'm not going to
`introduce them all in the interest of time, but I believe
`each of the defendants has several people on and listening
`intently. I just didn't want you to think we had missed
`it.
`
`THE COURT: In fact, let me establish, it was
`very nice for you to say because I try and I'll say at
`every one of these hearings -- this is my first video, but
`I think it's so critical that counsel have their clients
`appear because I think it's so important for them to hear
`the arguments made and to listen to how the Court
`proceeds. So I think that's a -- I'm glad you put that on
`the record. And for both sets of clients, I very much
`appreciate them taking the time to attend this this
`morning.
`So with that being said, with your permission,
`Mr. Lumish, who will take up a "gradation current having a
`current value"?
`MR. LUMISH: Me, your Honor. I'm going to argue
`all of the terms from the 137 patent.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. LUMISH: Mr. Davis will handle the 891 and
`Mr. Lee will handle the 068.
`THE COURT: Okay. And let me say on the record,
`for the claim term "a gradation current having a current
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:05:56
`
`09:06:00
`
`09:06:00
`
`09:06:03
`
`09:06:05
`
`09:06:06
`
`09:06:08
`
`09:06:13
`
`09:06:17
`
`09:06:22
`
`09:06:25
`
`09:06:29
`
`09:06:32
`
`09:06:37
`
`09:06:37
`
`09:06:39
`
`09:06:43
`
`09:06:48
`
`09:06:50
`
`09:06:52
`
`09:06:54
`
`09:06:55
`
`09:06:56
`
`09:06:58
`
`09:07:00
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-006
`
`
`
`7
`
`value," the Court has proposed a preliminary construction
`of a current, which conveys information about a level.
`And, Mr. Lumish, anything that you'd like to say
`in response to the Court's preliminary construction?
`MR. LUMISH: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
`I'm going to share my screen, if it's all right
`with the Court, so we can start to see our slides.
`THE COURT: Please.
`MR. LUMISH: And you can, of course, if you
`prefer to look at the hardcopies, you have those, as well.
`Hopefully everybody could see on the screen now the cover
`of our presentation. And just jumping -- let me jump
`right to the term, your Honor, though, you asked about
`this construction. Your tentative is on the left and what
`we have done is using sort of a traditional redline
`format, we have put what we would propose as the
`modifications to your constructions on the right.
`We do this still hoping that we can preserve and
`your Honor will understand that we think the constructions
`that we propose are the right ones and the ones best
`supported by the intrinsic record. But that if we could
`work with your constructions and see if there was some
`modifications that might, in our view, anyway, get them
`closer to that intrinsic evidence.
`And so, here, there's really two changes that we
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:07:05
`
`09:07:10
`
`09:07:15
`
`09:07:20
`
`09:07:23
`
`09:07:24
`
`09:07:26
`
`09:07:27
`
`09:07:32
`
`09:07:33
`
`09:07:35
`
`09:07:38
`
`09:07:41
`
`09:07:48
`
`09:07:51
`
`09:07:55
`
`09:07:57
`
`09:08:01
`
`09:08:05
`
`09:08:07
`
`09:08:11
`
`09:08:16
`
`09:08:18
`
`09:08:20
`
`09:08:22
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-007
`
`
`
`8
`
`would ask for -- or three, I guess. One is that the
`current be specifically recited to have a current value.
`And as I'll show you in a moment, that comes straight out
`of the claim language. And that the level in your
`tentative construction be -- specified to be a luminance
`level, not just any level of any kind. So that's the main
`proposed change we would make.
`And then, with your permission, your Honor, I
`will take a few minutes to just try to convince you to
`include in the construction, either in a footnote in the
`way you did with another term for -- in the order
`somewhere, even if it's not in the construction, something
`that captures that I think both parties have acknowledged
`that current and voltage are different things and that
`that's very important in this case.
`So if I may, I'll proceed down those lines. Let
`me start with these two issues. So here's why we would
`add "having a current value" and "a luminance level"
`specifically to your tentative, your Honor, and they come
`straight out of the claim language.
`When you look at claim 10, when you look at claim
`36, you see that they have the gradation signal generation
`circuit is the first limitation of claim 10. It generates
`a gradation current having a current value. It's not a
`gradation current on its own or in any nondescript way,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:08:26
`
`09:08:30
`
`09:08:34
`
`09:08:37
`
`09:08:39
`
`09:08:44
`
`09:08:48
`
`09:08:49
`
`09:08:50
`
`09:08:53
`
`09:08:56
`
`09:09:00
`
`09:09:02
`
`09:09:05
`
`09:09:09
`
`09:09:09
`
`09:09:15
`
`09:09:18
`
`09:09:21
`
`09:09:26
`
`09:09:27
`
`09:09:29
`
`09:09:34
`
`09:09:38
`
`09:09:41
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-008
`
`
`
`9
`
`but always expressly having a current value. That current
`value and gradation current allow the optical element --
`that's the OLED -- to perform what's called a
`light-emitting operation. In other words, it's going to
`light up. It's not going to be black. It's going to
`light up and it's gotta do that at a luminance that
`corresponds to a luminance gradation of the display data.
`So the two things we've asked your Honor to
`include into the tentative are the two things that I've
`underscored here on the screen. That it's a gradation
`current having a current value that sets the level and at
`that level is in particular one for setting the luminance
`level, what's called a luminance gradation in the 137
`patent. Again, straight out of the claims. The
`specification supports that over and over again.
`I'll just show you a couple of examples this
`morning so as to be efficient with your time. But here's
`column 10, line 45 through 55. I'm on slide 8 for the
`record. And you can see here, a discussion of the
`gradation current of the patent, and it refers to it as
`current Idata. And it says it has a predetermined current
`value. So that's the first addition we're asking you to
`put into that tentative. That current value allows the
`OLED again to perform the light-emitting operation and to
`do it with a predetermined luminance gradation. A
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:09:44
`
`09:09:48
`
`09:09:51
`
`09:09:55
`
`09:09:57
`
`09:10:00
`
`09:10:03
`
`09:10:07
`
`09:10:08
`
`09:10:11
`
`09:10:13
`
`09:10:17
`
`09:10:20
`
`09:10:24
`
`09:10:27
`
`09:10:29
`
`09:10:32
`
`09:10:35
`
`09:10:38
`
`09:10:43
`
`09:10:45
`
`09:10:49
`
`09:10:54
`
`09:10:59
`
`09:10:59
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-009
`
`
`
`10
`
`specific luminance level, as opposed to any level. So
`here, again, you see the two additions we're asking for
`straight out of the specification, straight out of the
`claim language.
`One more example of that, your Honor, is on
`column 13, lines 48 through 67. I could show you several
`of these. I don't think it's in dispute that there are a
`number of these things throughout the specification. The
`gradation signal is a gradation current having a current
`value that allows for the light-emitting operation and a
`desired luminance gradation.
`Your Honor, you're on mute. It looks like you
`may be trying to interject.
`THE COURT: No. I'm sorry. I was asking -- I
`was asking my clerk a question. I'm good.
`MR. LUMISH: I apologize. I wanted to make sure
`I wasn't speaking over you. Thank you.
`So that's really that argument, your Honor. I
`think it's quite simple, which is that the intrinsic
`record couldn't be more straight; that it's not any
`current, it's a current with a current value. It's not
`any level, it's a luminance level. So we would ask you to
`adjust your tentative construction to include those two
`principles straight out of the intrinsic record.
`The next --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:11:02
`
`09:11:04
`
`09:11:07
`
`09:11:09
`
`09:11:10
`
`09:11:13
`
`09:11:17
`
`09:11:19
`
`09:11:23
`
`09:11:26
`
`09:11:29
`
`09:11:33
`
`09:11:35
`
`09:11:37
`
`09:11:39
`
`09:11:42
`
`09:11:44
`
`09:11:46
`
`09:11:49
`
`09:11:52
`
`09:11:54
`
`09:11:56
`
`09:11:59
`
`09:12:02
`
`09:12:06
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-010
`
`
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from -- does it
`make -- Mr. Lumish, does it make more sense for you to do
`both that and gradation signal at the same time?
`MR. LUMISH: The arguments now collapse into the
`same one for me, your Honor. So in light of your
`tentative, our proposal for gradation signal is exactly
`the same, except I think it has the word "signal." So let
`me jump ahead to that. Let me just see what slide number
`that is. Forgive me for jumping here, but I'll just skip
`through to it.
`You can see your tentative on gradation signal on
`the screen now. Sorry about the jumping. So that's slide
`38. And we have essentially proposed the same additions.
`We left in the word "signal," as your Honor had it in the
`tentative, but we would like it to be a current signal. I
`don't think that ought to be controversial. And that the
`current signal have the current value from the claims, and
`that the level be the luminance level from the claims in
`the specification.
`I did want to talk about the not voltage, but it
`sounds like you'd like to hear from plaintiffs on these
`two issues. Is that correct, your Honor?
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from the
`plaintiff, please, with respect to -- what I don't have
`handy is the defendant's proposed change -- changes this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:12:06
`
`09:12:10
`
`09:12:13
`
`09:12:17
`
`09:12:20
`
`09:12:22
`
`09:12:25
`
`09:12:28
`
`09:12:32
`
`09:12:40
`
`09:12:41
`
`09:12:45
`
`09:12:47
`
`09:12:51
`
`09:12:55
`
`09:12:57
`
`09:13:00
`
`09:13:03
`
`09:13:06
`
`09:13:06
`
`09:13:09
`
`09:13:11
`
`09:13:19
`
`09:13:21
`
`09:13:31
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-011
`
`
`
`12
`
`morning. Could you -- Mr. Lumish, could you put yours
`back up? And I could hear from the plaintiff why they
`don't want those words added.
`MR. LUMISH: It should be up, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. If I could hear from counsel
`-- Mr. Mirzaie, are you handling this one?
`MR. MIRZAIE: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. MIRZAIE: Your Honor, if I may briefly show a
`slide deck, as well.
`THE COURT: Absolutely. As long as yours has the
`proposed modification on it that you want to discuss, that
`would be great. I just want to make sure I know what it
`is you're talking about.
`MR. MIRZAIE: And it does. And so, I think it
`might help you view the proposed modification while I
`discuss it. Let me share this. Your Honor, can you see
`my screen?
`THE COURT: I can see it.
`MR. MIRZAIE: Okay. Thank you.
`Your Honor, while we appreciate the change in the
`modification last night, it does not solve the biggest
`issue. So what you see here is actually the proposal from
`the defendant's brief that this court rightly rejected,
`and it has in there what we think is the biggest problem,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:13:38
`
`09:13:41
`
`09:13:43
`
`09:13:47
`
`09:13:48
`
`09:13:53
`
`09:13:59
`
`09:14:00
`
`09:14:01
`
`09:14:07
`
`09:14:08
`
`09:14:12
`
`09:14:14
`
`09:14:16
`
`09:14:18
`
`09:14:20
`
`09:14:23
`
`09:14:49
`
`09:14:54
`
`09:14:56
`
`09:14:57
`
`09:15:04
`
`09:15:08
`
`09:15:13
`
`09:15:17
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-012
`
`
`
`13
`
`the not voltage, as you see. This new slide shows the
`modified construction. And as my colleague, Doug, pointed
`out, there's three changes. The first two are the
`luminance level add-on and the value add-on, and there
`still is that awkward sentence at the end, "current is not
`voltage."
`So I'll take those in turn. On luminance level,
`our position is, your Honor, that the Court's construction
`is correct and that luminance level -- I believe my
`colleague stated this, that it's already in the claims.
`And the claims already, as my colleague showed, it already
`has the luminance term and it's referring to a luminance.
`So it's unnecessary to import it into the claim language
`again.
`
`But the other problem with that, your Honor --
`and let me just flip through the slides, apologies -- is
`that it actually distorts the claim, the way that my
`colleagues have introduced it. So this is the actual
`claim on the left, and this is what we believe is the
`defendants' modified construction on the right. And as
`you see on the left, the claim requires a gradation
`current having a current value for allowing the optical
`element to perform in its lighting-emitting operation, as
`we'll get into, I'm sure, later. On the right, it's a
`somewhat different construction that is a current having a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:15:20
`
`09:15:27
`
`09:15:32
`
`09:15:36
`
`09:15:44
`
`09:15:48
`
`09:15:49
`
`09:15:54
`
`09:15:56
`
`09:16:00
`
`09:16:04
`
`09:16:09
`
`09:16:14
`
`09:16:20
`
`09:16:21
`
`09:16:24
`
`09:16:32
`
`09:16:35
`
`09:16:39
`
`09:16:44
`
`09:16:50
`
`09:16:54
`
`09:16:59
`
`09:17:04
`
`09:17:07
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-013
`
`
`
`14
`
`current value which conveys information about a level.
`So they're requiring that the value convey
`information about a luminance level. And on the left in
`the claim, the value is for allowing the optical element
`to perform. Now, it is true that gradation, you know, I
`think the parties agree, the plain meaning of it is a
`level, and that is already in the Court's construction.
`But what -- at best, what the defendants' add-on of a
`luminance level does is repeat things, if we understand it
`correctly, that it's already in the claims that refer to
`luminance in this clause; but it looks like it qualifies
`it with a different part of the claim, namely, that the
`value must convey the information and not the current
`itself.
`
`On the term "value," frankly, we think the
`Court's construction, that second add-on, we think the
`Court's construction is perfectly fine. The "level" term
`in the Court's construction, we think, captures the claim
`language -- the intent of the claim fully. So as we
`stated, we will submit to the Court's construction. But
`if we add "value" -- you know, if the Court decides to add
`"value" but adds it in a way that mirrors the claim and
`doesn't move it to change the way it's qualified, we're
`okay with that, too.
`So if the Court would like to add that the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:17:12
`
`09:17:16
`
`09:17:19
`
`09:17:24
`
`09:17:27
`
`09:17:31
`
`09:17:36
`
`09:17:42
`
`09:17:44
`
`09:17:48
`
`09:17:52
`
`09:17:57
`
`09:18:00
`
`09:18:07
`
`09:18:07
`
`09:18:10
`
`09:18:14
`
`09:18:20
`
`09:18:25
`
`09:18:29
`
`09:18:31
`
`09:18:37
`
`09:18:40
`
`09:18:45
`
`09:18:47
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-014
`
`
`
`15
`
`gradation current has a current value for allowing the
`optical element to perform and make that clear, that's
`fine, too. What we think is not fine, again, is that --
`is the modification which distorts the claim into the
`current having a current value where apparently, according
`to defendants' new construction, the value contains and
`conveys the information about a luminance level.
`But I think the bigger issue is, your Honor, that
`this still has the -- what we think is the biggest risk to
`reversible error, which is that add-on at the end, the
`awkward add-on after the period. Current is not --
`THE COURT: I wouldn't spend a lot of time on
`
`that.
`
`MR. MIRZAIE: Okay. Well, then, I'll reserve my
`time and let my colleague respond to the two add-ons.
`THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lumish.
`MR. LUMISH: Thank you. If I may have the screen
`back, please.
`MR. MIRZAIE: So I have to exit.
`MR. LUMISH: You have to stop sharing screen.
`MR. MIRZAIE: Sorry about that.
`MR. LUMISH: So, your Honor, on the two
`additions, here's the claim language again, and it doesn't
`say the current sets a level. It just doesn't say that.
`It says the current having a current value. And it
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:18:52
`
`09:18:55
`
`09:18:59
`
`09:19:01
`
`09:19:06
`
`09:19:10
`
`09:19:13
`
`09:19:15
`
`09:19:19
`
`09:19:26
`
`09:19:30
`
`09:19:33
`
`09:19:35
`
`09:19:35
`
`09:19:38
`
`09:19:41
`
`09:19:47
`
`09:19:48
`
`09:19:52
`
`09:19:55
`
`09:20:07
`
`09:20:31
`
`09:20:33
`
`09:20:35
`
`09:20:39
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-015
`
`
`
`16
`
`doesn't say that the current value alone, all it does is
`perform a light-emitting operation. The language is very
`clear. It says the current having a current value as a
`unit. Both things together, they're inextricably bound.
`It is a current having a current level, as opposed to just
`somewhere in the current, allows the optical element to
`perform the operation, but doesn't stop there. It's
`performing the operation at a luminance corresponding to a
`luminance gradation of the display data.
`And so, these aren't additions to the claim
`language. This is the claim language. It says, quite
`simply, that the current having the current value sets
`that level together and that that level is a luminance
`level.
`
`And so, I showed you that exact same language in
`the specification. You can see here again at column 10,
`line 45 to 55, the same language. Not the current by
`itself and not any level and not only -- the value doesn't
`only perform a light-emitting operation. The data has a
`current value that performs the operation at a
`predetermined luminance gradation.
`So we think this addition is actually quite
`critical, given that it's straight out of the claim
`language. So you wouldn't want to read that claim
`language out.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:20:42
`
`09:20:46
`
`09:20:50
`
`09:20:52
`
`09:20:56
`
`09:20:59
`
`09:21:02
`
`09:21:05
`
`09:21:09
`
`09:21:11
`
`09:21:13
`
`09:21:16
`
`09:21:18
`
`09:21:22
`
`09:21:23
`
`09:21:27
`
`09:21:30
`
`09:21:34
`
`09:21:37
`
`09:21:41
`
`09:21:43
`
`09:21:45
`
`09:21:49
`
`09:21:52
`
`09:21:56
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-016
`
`
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: I'll be right back with you guys.
`MR. LUMISH: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. The Court is going to make
`permanent its preliminary constructions for those two
`claim terms. Therefore, the Court's final construction
`for the claim term "a gradation current having a current
`value" is, quote, a current, which conveys information
`about a level, close quote.
`With regard to the claim term "gradation signal,"
`the final construction will be "signal conveying
`information about a level." The Court finds that the
`suggestions made by the defendant would be redundant and
`are unnecessary.
`With regard to the next claim term, which is --
`begins with "generates as the gradation signal a
`non-light-emitting display voltage having a predetermined
`voltage value, and also, a non-light-emitting display
`voltage having a predetermined voltage value for allowing
`the optical element to perform a non-light-emitting
`operation is generated as the gradation signal. The
`Court's preliminary construction is not indefinite.
`Mr. Lumish, are you handling this one?
`MR. LUMISH: I am, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
`MR. LUMISH: And I take it, you don't want to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:21:57
`
`09:22:00
`
`09:22:21
`
`09:22:23
`
`09:22:25
`
`09:22:30
`
`09:22:33
`
`09:22:38
`
`09:22:40
`
`09:22:44
`
`09:22:48
`
`09:22:52
`
`09:22:57
`
`09:22:58
`
`09:23:01
`
`09:23:07
`
`09:23:10
`
`09:23:15
`
`09:23:18
`
`09:23:24
`
`09:23:27
`
`09:23:29
`
`09:23:32
`
`09:23:33
`
`09:23:34
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-017
`
`
`
`18
`
`hear about the not voltage point, then I'll leave that to
`the briefing.
`So moving on to this issue, your Honor, we would
`make one little tweak to your construction. We obviously
`do think it is indefinite, and so, we'd ask you to find
`that and I'll show you why. And I think there's an issue
`that wasn't brought out too plainly in our briefing, which
`maybe will help shed some light on that here this morning,
`which is this light-emitting operation point. If you look
`at the claims, they, in every instance, require that the
`gradation current provide or allow for the provision of
`this light-emitting operation. You see it in claim 10,
`you see it in claim 36. This is slide 46 up on the
`screen.
`
`And so, in every instance, it's describing
`actually emitting light through the OLED, as opposed to
`going dark. And the requirement was added in the file
`history as an amendment. You can see all of these things
`that we're talking about here were actually added as an
`amendment. The original claims were broad enough to just
`cover any gradation signal of any kind. They were then
`reduced to what you see on the screen and what I showed
`you a moment ago, which is only gradation current, having
`a current value. Only for allowing the element to perform
`a light-emitting operation and always at that luminance
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:23:35
`
`09:23:38
`
`09:23:39
`
`09:23:43
`
`09:23:45
`
`09:23:49
`
`09:23:51
`
`09:23:54
`
`09:23:57
`
`09:24:00
`
`09:24:05
`
`09:24:10
`
`09:24:13
`
`09:24:16
`
`09:24:16
`
`09:24:19
`
`09:24:24
`
`09:24:35
`
`09:24:38
`
`09:24:41
`
`09:24:44
`
`09:24:46
`
`09:24:49
`
`09:24:53
`
`09:24:56
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-018
`
`
`
`19
`
`level that we talked about a few moments ago. So we see
`this as added to the claims.
`I'm going to jump back. Some of the slides that
`I think go to this are actually for the other term, I'm
`going to not argue that term to your Honor. But I did
`want to show you a couple of things, which is where
`voltage is used in this patent, because it's used in two
`ways. First of all, when you see a voltage signal, it's
`always used either at -- in the prior art where here, they
`talk about at column 2, lines 42 through 46, a gradation
`voltage, instead of that current gradation that we showed
`a few moments ago and that subject to your first two
`rulings.
`
`There was and the patent recognizes that the
`prior art used another approach. These gradation -- or,
`pardon me, voltage program pixels and they were known.
`Figure 36 is labelled right on its face as prior art, and
`it uses that voltage programming, that voltage V pix, it's
`called there, to send that signal to the OLED to tell it
`how much to light up. So we see that here at column 2,
`lines 42 through 46.
`Column 2, 34 to 41, same idea, a gradation
`voltage V pix having a voltage value corresponding to the
`display data. So again, in the prior art, we see this
`voltage. And I'll skip forward. The patent criticizes
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:25:00
`
`09:25:02
`
`09:25:04
`
`09:25:10
`
`09:25:14
`
`09:25:15
`
`09:25:17
`
`09:25:20
`
`09:25:23
`
`09:25:28
`
`09:25:32
`
`09:25:34
`
`09:25:38
`
`09:25:38
`
`09:25:42
`
`09:25:44
`
`09:25:49
`
`09:25:52
`
`09:25:56
`
`09:25:59
`
`09:26:02
`
`09:26:04
`
`09:26:09
`
`09:26:14
`
`09:26:17
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-019
`
`
`
`20
`
`that approach. It says that voltage-based signals have
`problems with them. The voltage may change over time, the
`voltage may fluctuate, and it becomes as they -- right
`here at the bottom of column 3, lines 15 through 30, that
`as a result, it would become difficult to stably realize a
`light-emitting operation for a long period with an
`appropriate luminance gradation corresponding to the
`display data.
`So voltage-driven signals have problems. That's
`what we learned from the specification. They state again
`here at column 3, lines 31 through 41, of the 137 patent
`that furthermore, jumping down, the current value largely
`varies for each display pixel, and the bottom line, being
`that an appropriate gradation control becomes unable to be
`performed. So it's a criticism of this approach to
`voltage.
`Now, there's a second way that you see voltage
`being used, and that's here on this slide 21. This is
`column 10, lines 45 through 55. And when it describes the
`patent in several places -- I'll show you two, but I think
`there's closer on the order of ten of these. When it
`describes the gradation current, it also will sometimes
`say that the gradation selection unit or generation unit,
`I should say, can generate also what it calls a
`non-light-emitting display voltage Vzero. And this is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:26:19
`
`09:26:26
`
`09:26:30
`
`09:26:33
`
`09:26:38
`
`09:26:42
`
`09:26:44
`
`09:26:47
`
`09:26:47
`
`09:26:51
`
`09:26:55
`
`09:26:59
`
`09:27:03
`
`09:27:09
`
`09:27:12
`
`09:27:15
`
`09:27:16
`
`09:27:18
`
`09:27:23
`
`09:27:27
`
`09:27:30
`
`09:27:33
`
`09:27:35
`
`09:27:39
`
`09:27:43
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Ex. 1037-020
`
`
`
`21
`
`where -- this is going to get right to this indefiniteness
`issue.
`
`So this specification cite here, you've got these
`two different kinds of things you could set, either
`current or display voltage Vzero. It doesn't call it a
`gradation signal, you'll note, but it does say you can
`generate it from the signal generation unit -- gradation
`signal generation unit. Here's a second example. This is
`column 12, line 64 through column 13, line 6. You could
`send a gradation signal, a gradation current or,
`alternatively, a non-light-emitting display voltage. So
`fundamentally differe