Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 3225
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC., PANASONIC
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 2:20-cv-00283-JRG [LEAD CASE]
`C.A. No. 2:20-cv-00284-JRG
`C.A. No. 2:20-cv-00285-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.’S
`P.R. 4-5(b) RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 3226
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,218,119 (“THE ’119 PATENT”) ..................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Disputed Constructions ........................................................................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“the connected second electrode” (claim 1) ................................................ 1
`
`“one of the pair of transparent substrates having . . . a plurality of
`pixel regions . . . wherein the pixel region has . . . a first electrode”
`and a “second electrode is disposed between the first electrode and
`the one of the pair of transparent substrates” (claim 1) ............................... 4
`
`3.
`
`“the second electrode” (claim 2) ................................................................. 7
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,936,429 (“THE ’429 PATENT”) ..................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Disputed Constructions ........................................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`“one of the pair of transparent substrates having . . . a plurality of
`pixel regions . . . wherein the pixel region has . . . a pixel
`electrode” and a “counter electrode is disposed between the pixel
`electrode and the one of the pair of transparent substrates” (claim
`1) .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`2.
`
`“the counter electrode” (claim 5) ................................................................. 8
`
`III.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,139,687 (“THE ’687 PATENT”) ................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Disputed Construction: “the liquid crystal has mainly negative dielectric
`anisotropy” (claims 9, 19) ....................................................................................... 9
`
`IV.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,636,142 (“THE ’142 PATENT”) ................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Disputed Construction: “[a] liquid crystal display device . . . wherein . . . liquid
`crystal molecules are driven by applying a voltage between the lower electrode
`and the upper electrode” (claim 1) ........................................................................ 12
`
`V.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,793,299 (“THE ’299 PATENT”) ................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`-i-
`
`Page 2
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 3227
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Construction: “display device . . . used in a hand-held electronic device”
`(claims 1, 6, preamble) .......................................................................................... 14
`
`VI.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,715,132 (“THE ’132 PATENT”) ................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`Disputed Constructions ......................................................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“a spacer formed on an inner surface of the first substrate” (claims
`1, 11) .......................................................................................................... 17
`
`“a reference electrode which causes an electric field controlling the
`liquid crystal molecule to form between the reference electrode
`and the pixel electrode” (claims 1, 11) ...................................................... 19
`
`VII. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,018,859 (“THE ’859 PATENT”) ................................................. 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................... 20
`
`Disputed Constructions ......................................................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“a spacer formed on an inner surface of the first substrate” (claim
`1) ................................................................................................................ 20
`
`“a reference electrode which causes an electric field controlling the
`liquid crystal molecule to form between the reference electrode
`and the pixel electrode” (claim 1) ............................................................. 21
`
`3.
`
`“plane view” (claims 1, 9, 13) ................................................................... 21
`
`VIII. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,385,665 (“THE ’665 PATENT”) ................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................... 24
`
`Disputed Construction: “connection part” (claim 1) ............................................. 24
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 3
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 3228
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`923 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 21
`
`Bridgelux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
`No. 9:06–CV–240, 2008 WL 2325623 (E.D. Tex. June 3, 2008) ............................................. 5
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 9, 11
`
`Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 1, 12, 19, 26
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-00090-JRG, 2020 WL 1666462 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2020) .................................... 2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................................... 22
`
`Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp.,
`76 Fed. Appx. 293 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`R.A.C.C. Indus., Inc. v. Stun- Tech, Inc.,
`178 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (unpublished) ...................................................... 12, 13, 16, 19
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................... 12, 18, 19
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 4
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 3229
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Aris Silzars on June 11, 2021 (“Silzars Dep.
`Tr.”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,018,859, Non-Final Office Action
`dated September 8, 2017
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,018,859, Response and Amendment
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 dated December 7, 2017
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,018,859, Notice of Allowance dated
`January 31, 2018
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,018,859, Examiner’s Amendment
`Communication dated February 20, 2018
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,018,859, Examiner’s Amendment
`Communication dated June 18, 2018
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,665, Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 dated January 2, 2008
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,665, Notices of Allowance dated
`February 4, 2008, April 9, 2008, and April 22, 2008
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`Page 5
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 3230
`
`Defendant Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Tianma
`
`Microelectronics”) hereby submits its responsive Claim Construction Brief pursuant to Local
`
`Patent Rule 4-5(b). Out of the 135 asserted claims from 15 asserted patents, Defendant presents
`
`only 10 distinct claim terms (14 if counting duplicative terms) for construction. Without
`
`exception, Plaintiffs argue that no terms need construction, and that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning governs, but they fail to identify what the plain and ordinary meaning is. That is
`
`improper. “When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term,
`
`it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d
`
`1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For the reasons described below, the Court should adopt
`
`Defendant’s proposed constructions.
`
`I.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,218,119 (“THE ’119 PATENT”)
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’119 Patent, titled “Liquid Crystal Display Device,” was filed on September 13,
`
`2011. It claims an earliest domestic priority date of September 5, 2000. It also claims foreign
`
`priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP 11252763, filed on September 7, 1999. The ’119
`
`Patent is a continuation of the ’429 Patent and a continuation parent of the ’687 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Constructions
`1.
`
`“the connected second electrode” (claim 1)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary; Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Indefinite. This claim term, read in light of the
`patent’s specification and prosecution history,
`fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about its scope because it fails
`to specify whether it refers to the “second
`electrode formed of a transparent electrode” or
`the “second electrode of an adjacent pixel
`region.”
`
`-1-
`
`Page 6
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 3231
`
`
`This claim term is indefinite because it could be referring back to either of two different
`
`instances of “second electrode” recited in claim 1. See Personalized Media Communications,
`
`LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00090-JRG, 2020 WL 1666462, at *17-*18 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3,
`
`2020) (claim 12 ruled indefinite due to multiple possible antecedent bases for “said identified
`
`storage locations”). The two instances of “second electrode” in claim 1 that could be supplying
`
`the antecedent basis are: (1) “a second electrode formed of a transparent electrode”; and (2) “the
`
`second electrode of an adjacent pixel region.” The claim also recites that the two instances of
`
`“second electrodes” are connected to each other—“ the second electrode is connected with the
`
`second electrode of an adjacent pixel region.” So both instances can be considered “connected
`
`second electrodes,” and thus are equally capable of serving as antecedent basis for this claim
`
`term. The intrinsic record, however, fails to resolve which of the two instances of “second
`
`electrode” this claim term refers back to, leading to indefiniteness.
`
`The key dispute between the parties is: how many instances of “second electrode” does
`
`claim 1 actually recite? Plaintiffs wrongly contend that there is only one instance of “second
`
`electrode” recited—“a second electrode formed of a transparent electrode.” In their view, all
`
`subsequent references to “the second electrode,” including “the second electrode of an adjacent
`
`pixel region,” refer back to this single instance of “second electrode.” See Pl.’s Br. at 7 (Claim 1
`
`claims a “liquid crystal display” with a “plurality of pixel regions defined by drain signal lines
`
`and gate signal lines” and only one “second electrode.”) (emphasis in original).
`
`Plaintiffs rely on Embodiment 2 (depicted in Fig. 15) of the specification, arguing that the
`
`single “second electrode” is referred to as a counter electrode. But the description of Fig. 15
`
`clearly states that there are multiple counter electrodes CT. For example, it states:
`
`-2-
`
`Page 7
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 3232
`
`The constitution of this embodiment, which differs from the
`constitution of the first embodiment, is that, first of all,
`counter electrodes CT which are formed of transparent
`electrodes, are formed on an insulation film GI, and the
`counter electrodes CT and the drain signal lines DL are
`formed on the same layer.
`
`’119 Patent at 13:32-37 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Silzars, also flatly rejected
`
`Plaintiffs’ single-instance theory in his deposition testimony:
`
`Q. Okay. Before we get to the connection part, I just want
`to make sure I understand.
`
`Are you saying that there are two separate instances of a
`second electrode, or are you saying there’s only one instance
`of a second electrode?
`
`A. The claim as written talks about what happens within a
`pixel region. Now, we know that every display has more than
`one pixel region. That would be unrealistic to say that oh,
`we're only going to have one pixel region.
`
`So this particular claim says, in that pixel region, I have a
`second electrode. And then it goes on -- and then, of course,
`it says well, of course, we have many pixels, so every one of
`those has a second electrode.
`
`Q. Okay. I think I understand. And just to make sure that --
`maybe if I’m wrong, I want you to correct me.
`
`So my understanding of what you're saying is there’s a pixel
`region and then there’s an adjacent pixel region. Each of
`these two pixel regions has its own second electrode?
`
`* * *
`
`A. Every pixel region has a second electrode, otherwise we
`don’t have a working display.
`
`* * *
`
`Q. Got it. And so if we had -- if the claim were talking about
`five different pixel electrodes as a hypothetical, then you
`would talk about five different second electrodes being
`connected?
`
`-3-
`
`Page 8
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 3233
`
`A. They’re all second electrodes, and there just happen to
`be five of them. But they’re not different. They’re the same
`thing.
`
`Ex. 1,1 Silzars Dep. Tr. at 56:7-59:3 (emphasis added).
`
`In sum, because the intrinsic record fails to resolve which of the two instances of “second
`
`electrode” this claim term refers back to, this claim term fails to inform, with reasonable
`
`certainty, those skilled in the art about its scope. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
`
`2.
`
`“one of the pair of transparent substrates having . . . a plurality of
`pixel regions . . . wherein the pixel region has . . . a first electrode” and
`a “second electrode is disposed between the first electrode and the one
`of the pair of transparent substrates” (claim 1)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary; Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Indefinite. This claim term, read in light of the
`patent’s specification and prosecution history,
`fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about its scope because the
`substrate cannot “have” the first electrode
`while simultaneously the second electrode “is
`disposed between” the first electrode and the
`substrate.
`
`
`This claim term recited in claim 1 has two clauses that are inconsistent with each other,
`
`leading to indefiniteness. The first clause recites “one of the pair of transparent substrates having
`
`. . . a plurality of pixel regions . . . wherein the pixel region has . . . a first electrode.” The second
`
`clause, however, recites that a “second electrode is disposed between the first electrode and the
`
`one of the pair of transparent substrates.” These clauses are inconsistent with each other.
`
`
`1 Exhibit numbers refer to the exhibits accompanying the declaration of Karthik Kumar in
`support of Defendant Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.’s P.R. 4-5(b) Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief.
`
`-4-
`
`Page 9
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 3234
`
`According to the second clause, the first electrodes are not part of the transparent
`
`substrate but layered above it, with the second electrodes disposed between the first electrodes
`
`and the transparent substrate. In his declaration, Dr. Silzars explains that the second electrodes
`
`are layered above the transparent substrate, and the first electrodes are further layered above the
`
`second electrodes:
`
`Layered above transparent substrate SUB1 are various
`elements, including the pixel electrodes PX(ITO2), drain
`lines DL(d1), gate lines, and counter electrodes CT. The
`pixel electrodes PX(ITO2) are positioned in the pixel region
`and correspond to the claimed “first electrode.” The counter
`electrode CT, the claimed second electrode, is positioned
`between the pixel electrodes PX(ITO2) and the transparent
`subtrate [sic] SUB1.
`
`Dkt. No. 86-10 at 24 (¶ 54) (emphasis added). This layered structure means that the first
`
`electrodes are not part of the transparent substrate.
`
`According to the first clause, however, the first electrodes are part of a transparent
`
`substrate. Specifically, the first clause recites that a transparent substrate “ha[s]” a plurality of
`
`pixel regions, and each pixel region in turn “has” a first electrode. Courts have interpreted the
`
`word “has” as “consisting of” or “consisting of only.” See Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp., 76 Fed.
`
`Appx. 293, 296 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Bridgelux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. 9:06–CV–240, 2008 WL
`
`2325623, at *12 (E.D. Tex. June 3, 2008). The claims here also consistently use “has” to connote
`
`that one thing is a part of another. For example, claim 5 recites that “the counter electrode has an
`
`opening portion,” which means that the opening portion is part of the counter electrode. See ’119
`
`Patent at claim 5. Similarly, claim 6 recites that “the first insulating layer has a contact hole,”
`
`which means that the contact hole is part of the first insulating layer. See ’119 Patent at claim 6.
`
`Moreover, when the patentee wanted to describe a layered structure, it did so using explicit
`
`-5-
`
`Page 10
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 3235
`
`recitation of “layers” and describing the layered arrangement. See ’119 Patent at claims 3, 4, 7;
`
`Silzars Dep. Tr. at 44:22-45:21.
`
`In his deposition testimony, Dr. Silzars admitted that it would be nonsensical to interpret
`
`the claimed word “has” (which appears in the first clause), as meaning layered above:
`
`Q. So let's take a look at claim 5. Claim 5 says “wherein the
`counter electrode has a opening portion.”
`
`Do you see that language?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. So in claim 5, you would agree with me that the opening
`portion is in the counter electrode?
`
`A. According to the words we read here, that’s how I would
`interpret them, yes.
`
`Q. Great. And for me to say in claim 5 the opening portion
`is layered above the counter electrode, that would be
`nonsensical too?
`
`A. If the opening is in the counter electrode itself, then it
`can't be above the counter electrode. I don't -- it would be
`meaningless. Above the counter electrode where?
`
`You are saying according to how we're reading this words
`the opening is in the counter electrode. The counter electrode
`has an opening portion.
`
`Silzars Dep. Tr. at 41:8-42:9 (emphasis added).
`
`In summary, when Dr. Silzars interprets the second clause of this claim term, he comes to
`
`the conclusion that it connotes a layered structure where the first electrodes are not part of the
`
`transparent substrate but layered above it. But when he interprets the first clause of this claim
`
`term, he comes to the opposite conclusion, i.e., it would be nonsensical to consider the first
`
`electrode as layered above the transparent substrate, and instead the first electrodes are part of
`
`the transparent substrate. Dr. Silzars’s own conflicting opinions on the two clauses shows that
`
`-6-
`
`Page 11
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 3236
`
`this claim term is internally inconsistent, and thus fails to inform, with reasonable certainty,
`
`those skilled in the art about its scope. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910.
`
`3.
`
`“the second electrode” (claim 2)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary; Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Indefinite. This claim term, read in light of the
`patent’s specification and prosecution history,
`fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about its scope because it fails
`to specify whether it refers to the “second
`electrode formed of a transparent electrode” or
`the “second electrode of an adjacent pixel
`region.”
`
`
`This claim term is indefinite for the same reasons as “the connected second electrode”
`
`recited in independent claim 1, as discussed in Section I.B.1. Specifically, the intrinsic record of
`
`the ’119 Patent fails to resolve the ambiguity in claim 2 as to whether “the second electrode”
`
`refers to the “second electrode formed of a transparent electrode” or the “second electrode of an
`
`adjacent pixel region,” recited in claim 1, and thus fails to inform, with reasonable certainty,
`
`those skilled in the art about its scope. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910.
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,936,429 (“THE ’429 PATENT”)
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’429 Patent, titled “Liquid Crystal Display Device,” was filed on September 14,
`
`2010. It claims an earliest domestic priority date of September 5, 2000. It also claims foreign
`
`priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP 11252763, filed on September 7, 1999. The ’429
`
`Patent is a continuation parent of the ’119 and ’687 Patents.
`
`-7-
`
`Page 12
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 3237
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Constructions
`1.
`
`“one of the pair of transparent substrates having . . . a plurality of
`pixel regions . . . wherein the pixel region has . . . a pixel electrode”
`and a “counter electrode is disposed between the pixel electrode and
`the one of the pair of transparent substrates” (claim 1)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary; Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Indefinite. This claim term, read in light of the
`patent’s specification and prosecution history,
`fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about its scope because the
`substrate cannot “have” the pixel electrode
`while simultaneously the counter electrode “is
`disposed between” the pixel electrode and the
`substrate.
`
`
`This claim term is nearly identical to the term recited in claim 1 of the child ’119 Patent,
`
`except that this term recites “pixel electrode” instead of “first electrode,” and “counter electrode”
`
`instead of “second electrode.” The Court should hold that this claim term is indefinite for the
`
`same reasons as the claim term of the ’119 Patent, as discussed in Section I.B.2.
`
`2.
`
`“the counter electrode” (claim 5)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary; Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Indefinite. This claim term, read in light of the
`patent’s specification and prosecution history,
`fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about its scope because it fails
`to specify whether it refers to the “counter
`electrode formed of a transparent electrode” or
`the “counter electrode of an adjacent pixel
`region.”
`
`
`This claim term is nearly identical to the term recited in claim 2 of the child ’119 Patent,
`
`except that this term recites “counter electrode” instead of “second electrode.” This claim term is
`
`indefinite for the same reasons as “the connected second electrode” recited in independent claim
`
`-8-
`
`Page 13
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 3238
`
`1, as discussed in Section I.B.1. Specifically, the intrinsic record of the ’119 Patent fails to
`
`resolve the ambiguity in claim 2 as to whether “the counter electrode” refers to the “counter
`
`electrode formed of a transparent electrode” or the “counter electrode of an adjacent pixel
`
`region,” recited in claim 1, and thus fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the
`
`art about its scope. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910.
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,139,687 (“THE ’687 PATENT”)
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’687 Patent, titled “Liquid Crystal Display Device,” was filed on April 25, 2016. It
`
`claims an earliest domestic priority date of September 5, 2000. It also claims foreign priority to
`
`Japanese Patent Application No. JP 11252763, filed on September 7, 1999. The ’687 Patent is a
`
`continuation of both the ’119 and ’429 Patents.
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Construction: “the liquid crystal has mainly negative dielectric
`anisotropy” (claims 9, 19)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary; Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Indefinite. This claim term, read in light of the
`patent’s specification and prosecution history,
`fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about its scope because the
`intrinsic record of the patent fails to set forth
`how to objectively measure whether the
`dielectric anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer
`is “mainly” negative.
`
` claim term is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution
`
` A
`
`history, it “fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of
`
`the invention.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910.. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ position, “[w]hen a ‘word of
`
`degree’ is used, the court must determine whether the patent provides ‘some standard for
`
`measuring that degree.’” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`
`-9-
`
`Page 14
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 3239
`
`2010). The intrinsic record of the patent must provide an objective standard for those skilled in
`
`the art by which to define the scope of the claim term. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766
`
`F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014). On the other hand, “a term of degree fails to provide
`
`sufficient notice of its scope if it depends on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s
`
`opinion.” Id. at 1370 (finding claim term indefinite because it “offer[ed] no objective indication
`
`of the manner in which content images are to be displayed to the user,” and the written
`
`description “fail[ed] to provide the clarity that the subjective claim language needs.”)
`
`Here, the claim term “mainly negative” is indefinite because the intrinsic record fails to
`
`identify (1) an objective way to measure the degree of dielectric anisotropy, and (2) an objective
`
`boundary for when the measured degree of dielectric anisotropy is considered “mainly negative.”
`
`Claims 9 and 19 merely recite: “wherein the liquid crystal layer has mainly negative dielectric
`
`anisotropy.” Plaintiffs’ own expert agreed that this is a term of degree:
`
`Q Okay. And then – so that means that some degree to the
`anisotropy that has to be determined; correct?
`
`A That’s always the case.
`
`Q And you just have to figure out how large a degree?
`
`A Correct.
`
`Silzars Dep. Tr. at 27:10-16. On its face, however, the claim language fails to state how to
`
`objectively measure the dielectric anisotropy, or how to objectively determine whether it is
`
`“mainly negative.”
`
`The entire intrinsic record relevant to this claim term consists of two sentences in the
`
`specification, which state in full:
`
` The above-mentioned characteristics are those of ele-
`ments which are prepared by using liquid crystal material
`having mainly negative dielectric anisotropy. On the other
`hand, when liquid crystal material having a positive dielec-
`
`-10-
`
`Page 15
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2004
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01028
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 96 Filed 07/14/21 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 3240
`
`tric anisotropy is used, although the maximum values of
`transmissivity of respective embodiments were decreased by
`0.5% respectively, an advantageous effect is obtained in that
`a threshold value voltage is reduced by 0.5 V.
`
`’687 Patent at 19:3-11; see Silzars Dep. Tr. at 28:1-8. The first sentence recites identical
`
`language to the claim term, and thus provides no guidance beyond the deficient claim language.
`
`See Silzars Dep. Tr. at 29:22-30:11. Similarly, the second sentence only mentions positive
`
`dielectric anisotropy, but provides neither guidance on how to objectively measure the degree of
`
`dielectric anisotropy, nor an objective boundary for what constitutes “mainly negative” dielectric
`
`anisotropy. Id. at 30:14-31:6. Plaintiffs’ expert testified that he typically would consider a wide
`
`range of values as “mainly negative.” Silzars Dep. Tr. at 26:4-27:9. Because the intrinsic record
`
`does not identify an objective boundary, however, the term’s scope impermissibly “depends on
`
`the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion.” Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371.
`
`Plaintiffs’ cited cases are readily distinguished. Unlike here, in Eibel Process Co. v.
`
`Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., although the claims did not define “the extent of the factor of
`
`pitch” except by the terms “substantial” and “high,” the patent figures provided an objective
`
`standard, indicating “an angle of 4 per cent., or an elevation of 12 inches, and the reference to the
`
`small elevations for drainage shown in earlier devices indicated that the patentee had in mind
`
`elevations substantial as compared with them.” 261 U.S. 45, 65 (1923). No such standard is
`
`present in the s