UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX OLED
`DISPLAY DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1243
`
`ORDER NO. 14:
`
`CONSTRUING TERMS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`(August 4, 2021)
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`RELEVANT LAW ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .......................................................................................... 8
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ................................................................................................ 9
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`Technical Background ............................................................................................... 9
`
`The Asserted Claims ................................................................................................ 11
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Construction of the Agreed-Upon Claim Terms ...................................................... 19
`
`Construction of the Disputed Claim Terms ............................................................. 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`068 Patent - “patterned together [with]” ...................................................... 20
`
`068 Patent - “signal lines” ............................................................................ 32
`
`068 Patent - “supply lines” .......................................................................... 35
`
`068 Patent - “connected to said plurality of supply lines along said plurality
`of supply lines” ............................................................................................ 38
`
`068 Patent - “source” / “drain” .................................................................... 44
`
`880 Patent - “vicinities of [respective] intersections” .................................. 48
`
`880 Patent - “data drive unit”....................................................................... 57
`
`880 Patent - “drive control unit” .................................................................. 63
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 2
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This investigation was instituted by the Commission on February 2, 2021 to determine
`
`whether certain electronic devices containing active matrix OLED displays and components thereof
`
`infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 (“the 068 patent”) and 7,868,880 (“the 880 patent”). See 86
`
`Fed. Reg. 7878 (Feb. 2, 2021). The complainant is Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas”). The named
`
`respondents are BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd., Beijing BOE Display Technology Co., Ltd., BOE
`
`Technology America Inc. (altogether, “BOE”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (altogether, “Samsung”). The Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) is also a party to the investigation. On July 26, 2021, Solas and BOE
`
`moved to terminate the investigation with respect to BOE based on settlement under 19 C.F.R. §
`
`210.21(b), which remains pending.
`
`Pursuant to the procedural schedule, the parties filed a joint claim construction chart setting
`
`forth a limited set of terms to be construed, and initial and rebuttal claim construction briefs,1
`
`wherein each offered a construction for the claim terms in dispute, along with support for that
`
`proposed interpretation. On June 1, 2021, the videoconference Markman hearing scheduled for June
`
`9-10 was cancelled, and the parties were informed their disputes would be resolved on the briefs.
`
`Order No. 11. On June 15, 2021, the parties submitted an updated joint claim construction chart.
`
`
`The briefs and amended chart submitted by the parties are hereafter referred to as:
`CIMB
`Complainant’s Initial Markman Brief
`CRMB
`Complainant’s Rebuttal Markman Brief
`RIMB
`Respondents’ Initial Markman Brief
`RRMB
`Respondents’ Rebuttal Markman Brief
`SIMB
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`SRMB
`Staff’s Rebuttal Markman Brief
`JC
`Updated Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`1
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 3
`
`

`

`II.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and
`
`scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly
`
`construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
`
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (internal citations omitted), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`Claim construction is a “matter of law exclusively for the court.” Id. at 970-71. “The construction
`
`of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in order to understand
`
`and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng'g Corp., 216
`
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. As the Federal Circuit
`
`in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these components to determine the “ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a claim term” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention. 415 F.3d at 1313. “Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the
`
`legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”’ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure
`
`Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “Quite apart
`
`from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims themselves provide substantial
`
`guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.” Id. at 1314; see also Interactive Gift
`
`Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In construing claims, the
`
`analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is
`2
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 4
`
`

`

`that language that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point [ ] out and distinctly claim [ ] the
`
`subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.”). The context in which a term is used
`
`in an asserted claim can be “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, other
`
`claims in the same patent, asserted or unasserted, may also provide guidance as to the meaning of a
`
`claim term. Id. “Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give effect to the terms chosen by the
`
`patentee.” K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315
`
`(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[T]he
`
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from
`
`the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at
`
`1316. “In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim
`
`scope by the inventor.” Id. As a general rule, however, the particular examples or embodiments
`
`discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations. Id. at 1323. In the
`
`end, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the
`
`patent’s description of the invention will be ... the correct construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be examined,
`
`if in evidence. Phillips at 1317; see Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can “often inform the meaning of the claim language by
`
`demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the
`
`invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise
`
`be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 5
`
`

`

`2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to exclude any
`
`interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”).
`
`When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence (i.e., all evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, including dictionaries,
`
`inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less reliable than the patent itself and its
`
`prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms. Id. “The court may receive extrinsic
`
`evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant technology, but the court may not use
`
`extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds with the construction
`
`mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`If, after a review of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a claim term remains ambiguous,
`
`the claim should be construed so as to maintain its validity. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Claims,
`
`however, cannot be judicially rewritten in order to fulfill the axiom of preserving their validity. See
`
`Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, “if the only claim construction
`
`that is consistent with the claim’s language and the written description renders the claim invalid,
`
`then the axiom does not apply and the claim is simply invalid.” Id.
`
`The construction of a claim term is generally guided by its ordinary meaning. However,
`
`courts may deviate from the ordinary meaning when: (1) “the intrinsic evidence shows that the
`
`patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly
`
`disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the invention”; or
`
`(2) “the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed
`
`claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook
`
`
`
`4
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750
`
`F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the specification and prosecution history only compel departure
`
`from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”); Omega Eng’g, Inc, v.
`
`Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]here the patentee has unequivocally
`
`disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches
`
`and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.”); Rheox,
`
`Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The prosecution history limits the
`
`interpretation of claim terms so as to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during
`
`prosecution.”). Nevertheless, there is a “heavy presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002) (citations omitted). The standard for deviating from the plain and ordinary meaning is
`
`“exacting” and requires “a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t
`
`Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566
`
`F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (requiring “expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope” to deviate from the ordinary meaning) (citation
`
`omitted). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[w]e do not read limitations from the specification
`
`into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366;
`
`see Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Unwired Planet,
`
`LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that it is ‘not
`
`enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation’ to
`
`limit claims beyond their plain meaning.”).
`
`Courts are not required to construe every claim limitation of an asserted patent. See O2
`
`Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`
`
`5
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 7
`
`

`

`(citations omitted); Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the administrative law judge need only construe disputed claim terms).
`
`Rather, “claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to
`
`clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims.” Id. at 1362 (quoting
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see also Embrex, 216
`
`F.3d at 1347 (“The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim
`
`language in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.”) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`In addition, “[a] determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain
`
`and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or
`
`when reliance on a term's ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” O2 Micro, 521
`
`F.3d at 1361. Claim construction, however, is not an “obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S.
`
`Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d at 1568. “[M]erely rephrasing or paraphrasing the plain language of a
`
`claim by substituting synonyms does not represent genuine claim construction.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v.
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, “there are limits to the court’s
`
`duties at the claim construction stage. For example, courts should not resolve questions that do not
`
`go to claim scope, but instead go to infringement . . . or improper attorney argument.” Eon Corp.
`
`IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The determination as to whether a claim limitation invokes pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) is a
`
`two-step process. Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014). First,
`
`one must determine if the claim limitation is drafted in the means-plus-function format. Id. In
`
`particular, the use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112(6) is invoked.
`
`Id. If “means” is not used, the converse rebuttable presumption arises, but that presumption can be
`
`
`
`6
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 8
`
`

`

`overcome if “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function
`
`without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
`
`“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online,
`
`LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “When evaluating whether a claim limitation invokes
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6, the essential inquiry remains ‘whether the words of the claim are understood by persons
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.’”
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1007 (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348).
`
`If it is determined that § 112(6) applies, then the “corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`described in the specification” must be identified and the claim term will be given a scope
`
`commensurate with the structures, materials, or acts so described. See id. (internal citation omitted);
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009). If one is unable to
`
`identify any “corresponding structure, material, or acts” in the specification, then the claim term is
`
`indefinite. Id.; see Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “For means-
`
`plus-function limitations where the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to implement an
`
`algorithm, the patent must disclose enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citation
`
`omitted). The algorithm may be presented in any “understandable manner, including as a flowchart,
`
`so long as sufficient structure is disclosed.” Id.
`
`A claim must also be definite. Pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(2): “The specification
`
`shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
`
`matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(2). In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014), the Supreme Court held that § 112(2) requires “that
`
`
`
`7
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 9
`
`

`

`a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” A claim is required to “provide
`
`objective boundaries for those of skill in the art,” and a claim term is indefinite if it “might mean
`
`several different things and no informed and confident choice is among the contending definitions.”
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A patent claim that is
`
`indefinite is invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(3)(A).
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`In the initial briefing, only the Staff provides a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”). The Staff argues, “an ordinary artisan in the field of the asserted patents would
`
`likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and approximately two years of
`
`either industry or equivalent research experience in the areas of circuit design and/or optical display
`
`technologies.” SIMB at 7. The Staff adds it “is presently unaware of and does not anticipate any
`
`significant disputes between the parties with respect to the definition for the ‘person of ordinary
`
`skill.’” Id.
`
`In its reply brief, in a footnote, and only for the 880 patent, Samsung mentions:
`
`Respondents believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) with respect to
`the ’880 Patent in the 2005 time frame would have had at least a bachelor’s degree
`in electrical engineering, computer engineering, physics, or a related field (or
`equivalent) and at least two years’ industry experience, or equivalent experience in
`circuit design or related fields. Alternatively, a POSA could substitute directly
`relevant additional education for experience, e.g., an advanced degree relating to the
`design of electroluminescent devices, drive circuits, or other circuit design or an
`advanced degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent), with at least one year of
`industry experience in a related field. Respondents believe the proper constructions
`of the terms discussed herein would not differ under either Staff’s or Complainant’s
`definitions of a POSA.
`
`RRMB at 17 n.8. Solas does not provide any POSITA definition.
`
`The parties’ proposals are largely acceptable. Given the complexity and continuous
`
`advancement in the field of display technologies, a higher level of skill than a bachelor’s degree and
`
`
`
`8
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 10
`
`

`

`two years of experience may be warranted. Nevertheless, given the similarity between Samsung’s
`
`and the Staff’s definition, the lack of opposition from Solas, and the patents’ emphasis on non-
`
`computer electronic hardware, which weighs against an educational background in computer
`
`engineering or physics, the Staff’s definition is accepted for the purposes of this investigation.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`The 068 patent, entitled “Transistor Array Substrate and Display Panel,” was issued on
`
`August 11, 2009 to Satoru Shimoda, Tomoyuki Shirasaki, Jun Ogura, and Minoru Kumagai. The
`
`068 patent reports an assignment on its face to Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
`
`The 880 patent, entitled “Display Apparatus and Drive Control Method Thereof,” was issued
`
`on January 11, 2011 to Tsuyoshi Ozaki and Jun Ogura. The 880 patent reports an assignment on its
`
`face to Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
`
` Technical Background
`
`The Asserted Patents relate to the structure and operation of display panels made up of a
`
`plurality of light-emitting elements. Generally, the elements are self-luminous, meaning they cause
`
`themselves to emit light when supplied with a current. 068 patent at 1:16-20. An example of a self-
`
`luminous element is the light-emitting diode (“LED”). 880 patent at 1:31-39. The LEDs within a
`
`display are arranged in a matrix, often millions of them, and each is given a driving circuit, which
`
`supplies the current to cause the emission of light. 068 patent at Abstract; 880 patent at 2:4-13.
`
`Consequently, self-luminous displays do not require a backlight as would be used in, for example,
`
`liquid crystal displays (LCDs). 880 patent at 1:40-52. According to the patents, this arrangement
`
`allows for reductions in thickness, weight, power consumption, and improvements in viewing angle,
`
`display quality, and response speeds (e.g., for moving images). Id.; 068 patent at 1:22-26.
`
`The 068 patent is directed to the manufacture and arrangement of the light-emitting elements
`
`(e.g., pixels), driving circuits, and a variety of signal lines associated therewith. The lines include
`
`
`
`9
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 11
`
`

`

`scan lines, signal lines, and supply lines. The scan lines are connected to rows of light emitting
`
`elements, controlled by a select driver, and provided a voltage signal to sequentially select the rows
`
`for activation. 068 patent at 15:42-47. Similarly, a data driver supplies, among other things, a
`
`current signal through the signal lines, with that current value corresponding to an externally input
`
`gray level. Id. at 16:14-25, 17:19-31. A feed driver controls the supply lines, which are primarily
`
`used to supply the driving current to the light-emitting element during a light emission period. Id.
`
`at 16:48-56, 17:44-18:1. Importantly, the 068 patent teaches use of feed interconnections in
`
`conjunction with the supply lines to lower or diminish voltage drop and signal delay, among other
`
`effects. Id. at 4:10-35, 6:26-35. The feed interconnections are positioned either on top of the supply
`
`lines (id. at 6:33-35) or perpendicular thereto (id. at 27:1-13).
`
`The 880 patent concerns a control methodology for the display panel, the light-emitting
`
`elements arranged in a matrix, and the various control lines mentioned above. As to those lines, the
`
`880 patent explains:
`
`A scanning drive unit sequentially applies a scanning signal to each of the scanning
`lines and sets the corresponding display pixels to a selection state. A data drive unit
`generates a gradation signal corresponding to the display data and supplies the
`gradation signal to the display pixels. A power source drive unit supplies to the
`display pixels a drive voltage for controlling a drive state of each of the display
`pixels.
`
`880 patent at Abstract. The invention is generally differentiated from the prior art through its use
`
`of a non-light emitting period for each pixel in combination with write operation periods (of typical,
`
`non-shortened, length) and light-emitting periods. Compare id. at Figs. 8, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24 with
`
`id. at Figs. 26, 27. The benefits of the non-light emitting period include, among other things,
`
`improved visual recognition of moving images without a need for higher speed writing operations.
`
`See id. at 16:42-17:5.
`
`
`
`10
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 12
`
`

`

` The Asserted Claims
`
`The 068 patent has 17 claims. As of the date of this order, claims 13-17 are asserted in this
`
`investigation. The asserted claims read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms
`
`in italics and the first instance of the disputed terms highlighted in bold):
`
`13. A display panel comprising:
`
`a substrate;
`
`a plurality of driving transistors which are arrayed in a matrix on the substrate, each
`of the driving transistors having a gate, a source, a drain, and a gate insulating film
`inserted between the gate, and the source and drain;
`
`a plurality of signal lines which are patterned together with the gates of said
`plurality of driving transistors and arrayed to run in a predetermined direction on the
`substrate;
`
`a plurality of supply lines which are patterned together with the sources and drains
`of said plurality of driving transistors and arrayed to cross said plurality of signal
`lines via the gate insulating film, one of the source and the drain of each of driving
`transistors being electrically connected to one of the supply lines;
`
`a plurality of feed interconnections which are connected to said plurality of supply
`lines along said plurality of supply lines;
`
`a plurality of pixel electrodes each of which is electrically connected to the other of
`the source and the drain of a corresponding one of said plurality of driving transistors;
`
`a plurality of light-emitting layers which are formed on said plurality of pixel
`electrodes, respectively; and
`
`a counter electrode which covers said plurality of light-emitting layers.
`
`14. A panel according to claim 13, further comprising a plurality of scan lines which
`are patterned together with the sources and drains of said plurality of driving
`transistors and arrayed to cross said plurality of supply lines via the gate insulating
`film.
`
`15. A panel according to claim 14, which further comprises a plurality of switch
`transistors which are arrayed in a matrix on the substrate, each of the switch
`transistors having the gate insulating film inserted between a gate, and a source and
`drain, wherein one of the source and drain of each of said plurality of switch
`transistors is electrically connected to the other of the source and drain of a
`corresponding one of said plurality of driving transistors, the gate of each of said
`plurality of switch transistors is electrically connected to one of the scan lines through
`
`
`
`11
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 13
`
`

`

`a contact hole formed in the gate insulating film, and said other of the source and
`drain of each of said plurality of switch transistors is electrically connected to one of
`the signal lines through a contact hole formed in the gate insulating film.
`
`16. A panel according to claim 14, which further comprises a plurality of holding
`transistors which are arrayed in a matrix on the substrate, each of the holding
`transistors having the gate insulating film inserted between a gate, and a source and
`drain, wherein one of the source and drain of each of said plurality of holding
`transistors is electrically connected to the gate of a corresponding one of said
`plurality of driving transistors through a contact hole formed in the gate insulating
`film, the other of the source and drain of each of said plurality of holding transistors
`is electrically connected to one of: (i) one of the supply lines and (ii) one of the scan
`lines, and the gate of each of said plurality of holding transistors is electrically
`connected to one of the scan lines through a contact hole formed in the gate insulating
`film.
`
`17. A panel according to claim 13, wherein the feed interconnections are formed by
`patterning a material film which is different from a material film serving as a
`prospective pixel electrode and a material film serving as a prospective counter
`electrode and which is thicker than the gates of the driving transistors and the sources
`and drains of the driving transistors.
`
`The 880 patent has 40 claims. As of the date of this order, claims 2-40 are asserted in this
`
`investigation. The asserted claims read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms
`
`in italics and the first instance of the disputed terms highlighted in bold):
`
`2. A drive control method of controlling a display apparatus to display image
`information corresponding to display data, wherein the display apparatus comprises
`a display panel including a plurality of display pixels arranged thereon in vicinities
`of intersections of a plurality of scanning lines arranged in a row direction and a
`plurality of data lines arranged in a column direction, and each of the plurality of
`display pixels has an optical element and a display drive circuit which controls an
`operation of the optical element, the method comprising:
`
`sequentially setting the display pixels to a selection state, row by row;
`
`sequentially supplying a gradation signal corresponding to the display data to the
`display pixels in each row set to the selection state;
`
`setting each of the display pixels to a display operation state with said display pixels
`in a bias state corresponding to the gradation signal; and
`
`in a non-display period including a period in which the display pixels are set to a
`selection state, setting the display pixels to a non-display operation state in which the
`display data is not displayed,
`
`
`
`12
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-00591
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 14
`
`

`

`wherein the setting the display pixels to the display operation state is performed by
`applying to the display drive circuit a first voltage for setting the optical element to
`a forward bias state, and by holding a voltage component corresponding to the
`gradation signal in the display drive circuit, and
`
`wherein the setting of each display pixel to the non-display operation state comprises
`setting a specific bias state by eliminating the bias state set, corresponding to the
`gradation signal, to the display drive circuit of the display pixel.
`
`3. A display apparatus for displaying image information corresponding to display
`data, comprising:
`
`a display panel including a plurality of display pixels arranged thereon in vicinities
`of respective intersections of a plurality of scanning lines arranged in a row
`direction and a plurality of data lines arranged in a column direction;
`
`a scanning drive unit which sequentially applies a scanning signal to each of said
`plurality of scanning lines and sets the display pixels corresponding to each said
`scanning line to a selection state;
`
`a data drive unit which generates a gradation signal corresponding to the display
`data and supplies the gradation signal to the display pixels set to the selection state;
`
`a power source drive unit which supplies to the display pixels a drive voltage for
`controlling a drive state of each of the display pixels; and
`
`a drive control unit which sets a period including a select period in which the
`scanning drive unit sets the display pixels to the selection state as a non-display
`period in which the display pixels do not display the display data, and controls a
`voltage value of the drive voltage supplied from the power source drive unit to set
`the display pixels to a non-display operation state during the non-display period,
`
`wherein each of the plurality of display pixels has an optical element and a display
`drive circuit which controls an operation of the optical element, the display drive
`circuit having a first switch circuit including a control terminal and a conduction
`channel having a first en