Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 10900
`
`
`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
`[MEMBER CASES]
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
`NOVEMBER 18, 2021 ORDER (DKT. NO. 202) REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO
`NARROW THE NUMBER OF ASSERTED PATENTS TO FEWER THAN EIGHT
`
`US 8458022
`
` Page 1
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 10901
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 3
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`
`
`. ..................................................................................... 4
`
` .......................................... 5
`. ......... 7
`2.
`Plaintiffs’ 8 Selected Patents Also Have Unique Issues Relating to
`Infringement and Validity. ...................................................................................... 9
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,936,429........................................................................... 9
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,218,118......................................................................... 10
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,218,119......................................................................... 10
`4.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299......................................................................... 10
`5.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,830,409......................................................................... 11
`6.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,665......................................................................... 11
`7.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,142......................................................................... 12
`8.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,939,698......................................................................... 12
`The Cases Have Not Been Consolidated for Trial and Plaintiffs’ Election of
`8 Patents Would Be Reasonable When Split Among 3 Trials. ............................. 13
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`US 8458022
`
`-i-
`
` Page 2
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 10902
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Benjamin Moore & Co.,
`318 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................4
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Triton Tech of Tex., LLC. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:10-CV-328-JRG, 2012 WL 2036411 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2012) ......................................4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ................................................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) .......................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) .............................................................................................4
`
`US 8458022
`
`-ii-
`
` Page 3
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 10903
`
`
`Plaintiffs Japan Display Inc. (“JDI”) and Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display Co., Ltd.
`(“PLD”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully move the Court to reconsider its Order issued on
`November 18, 2021 (Dkt. 202, “Order”), requiring Plaintiffs to narrow the asserted patents and
`claims in these consolidated cases to no more than 7 patents and 20 claims by November 22, 2021,
`and no more than 4 patents and 12 claims by December 20, 2021.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Under the Court’s Order, what began as 15 patents asserted in 3 separate cases would
`ultimately be reduced to just 4 patents—barely more than 1 patent per case. Until now, the Court’s
`and the parties’ discussions concerning the final narrowing of these cases has been confined to
`status conferences and status reports. Thus, the Court has not had an opportunity to consider facts
`concerning the unique issues presented by the asserted patents that necessitate keeping more than
`4 patents. Indeed, consistent with Plaintiffs’ recent proposal to the Court (see Dkt. 189 at 2),
`Plaintiffs contend that 8 patents is the minimum in order to avoid a violation of Plaintiffs’ due
`process rights.
`
`
` from Defendant Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.
`(“Tianma”) for its infringement, Plaintiffs must be allowed to assert at least 8 patents. The 8
`patents selected by Plaintiffs provide the optimal combination of reducing the number of patents
`while maintaining Plaintiffs’ due process rights by allowing them to
`
`. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court permit Plaintiffs to continue asserting these
`8 patents against Tianma: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,936,429 (“the ’429 Patent”); 8,218,118 (“the ’118
`Patent”); 8,218,119 (“the ’119 Patent”); 9,793,299 (“the ’229 Patent”); 8,830,409 (“the ’409
`Patent”); 7,385,665 (“the ’665 Patent”); 7,636,142 (“the ’142 Patent”); and 9,939,698 (“the ’698
`Patent”).
`, a reduction in the number of asserted
`Tianma knows that
`patents will have a substantial and material impact on the overall damages in these consolidated
`cases. Plaintiffs presume that it is for that reason that Tianma has been so aggressive in seeking
`
`US 8458022
`
`-1-
`
` Page 4
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 10904
`
`
`to narrow these cases. In the latest status report, Tianma proposed that Plaintiffs ultimately be
`limited to just 3 patents—effectively 1 patent for each of the 3 cases. The Court’s limitation of
`Plaintiffs’ cases to just 4 total patents is a boon for Tianma. However, it should not be the Court’s
`role to aid Tianma in reducing its potential damages liability.
`Plaintiffs respect the Court’s need to manage its docket and ensure efficient administration
`and management of its cases, and Plaintiffs also agree that narrowing these cases—to a certain
`point—is beneficial to all. But the Court’s discretion in that regard must give way to due process
`considerations. Plaintiffs brought 3 cases against Tianma alleging that Tianma infringed 15
`patents, and Plaintiffs are entitled to seek adequate compensation for Tianma’s infringement.
`Denying Plaintiffs that right solely on the basis of narrowing the cases would be a violation of due
`process. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reconsider its Order and allow
`Plaintiffs to assert 8 patents against Tianma.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`On August 31, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Case No. 2:20-cv-00283 (“-283 Case”)
`against Tianma asserting 9 patents against Tianma’s TFT LCD products. On the same date, JDI
`filed complaints in separate Case Nos. 2:20-cv-00284 (“-284 Case”) and 2:20-cv-00285 (“-285
`Case”) against Tianma asserting an additional 3 patents per case against Tianma’s TFT LCD
`products. On April 20, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion (Dkt. 52) to consolidate
`the -284 and -285 Cases with the -283 Case “for all pretrial issues,” but the Court specifically
`stated that “[i]ndividual cases remain active for trial.” Dkt. 57 at 1–2. To date, there has been no
`order by the Court consolidating these cases for trial.
`On September 22, 2021, Tianma filed an Opposed Motion to Limit Number of Asserted
`Claims. Dkt. 149. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 1, 2021. Dkt. 155. On October 12,
`2021, the Court granted-as-modified Tianma’s motion and instructed Plaintiffs to narrow the
`asserted claims to no more than 8 claims from each patent and no more than 35 total claims by
`October 25, 2021. Dkt. 166 at 3. On October 25, 2021, Plaintiffs elected 35 claims from 13
`patents, in compliance with the Court’s order. See Dkt. 172. The following day, at a status
`
`US 8458022
`
`-2-
`
` Page 5
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 10905
`
`
`conference, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint notice by November 10, 2021, concerning
`efforts to resolve or further narrow the case. Dkt. 173 at 2.
`On November 10, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Progress on
`Narrowing the Asserted Claims and Prior Art. Dkt. 189. The parties reported having engaged in
`further meet and confers but failing to reach agreement on the scope and schedule for narrowing.
`Id. at 1. Plaintiffs proposed to narrow their allegations to no more than 8 patents and 20 total
`claims by November 22, 2021, with no further narrowing required. Id. at 1–2. Tianma proposed
`that Plaintiffs should be required to narrow to no more than 20 claims from 6 patents by November
`19, 2021, and then further narrow to no more than 10 claims from 3 patents by December 20, 2021.
`Id. at 3–5.
`On November 18, 2021, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiffs to narrow their
`assertions to no more than 7 patents and no more than 20 asserted claims by November 22, 2021,
`and to narrow further by December 20, 2021, down to no more than 4 patents and no more than
`12 asserted claims. Order at 3.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`District courts possess the authority and discretion to reasonably limit the number of claims
`asserted in patent infringement actions, subject to due process considerations. In re Katz
`Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In order to
`ensure that plaintiffs’ due process rights are upheld, courts must allow for the assertion of
`additional claims upon a showing of good cause or need. See id. at 1310–12. In order to make
`that showing, a plaintiff may seek to “demonstrate that some of its unselected claims presented
`unique issues as to liability or damages.” Id. at 1312. For example, this may involve showing that
`new claims “are substantially different from the claims it is currently asserting” or by showing that
`accused products or services under new claims “do not present the same issues for selected claims.”
`Id. In order to allege a due process violation, “the plaintiff must be able to show that it has lost
`some tangible right.” Id. “If, notwithstanding such a showing, the district court had refused to
`permit [a plaintiff] to add those specified claims, that decision would be subject to review and
`
`US 8458022
`
`-3-
`
` Page 6
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 10906
`
`
`reversal.” Id. at 1312–13.
`“It is this Court’s practice to consider motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the
`standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).” Triton Tech of Tex., LLC. v. Nintendo of Am.
`Inc., No. 2:10-CV-328-JRG, 2012 WL 2036411, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2012). The grounds for
`granting a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) include: “(1) an intervening change in
`controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to
`correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d
`626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Plaintiffs should be permitted to assert up to 8 patents against Tianma across these
`consolidated cases. As Plaintiffs have not yet had the opportunity to brief this issue, the evidence
`discussed below was not available to the Court to consider when deciding the Order.
`Reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, because restricting Plaintiffs to fewer
`than 8 patents without giving Plaintiffs the opportunity to show “good cause or need,” such as by
`presenting “unique issues as to liability or damages,” would be a violation of Plaintiffs’ due process
`rights. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1312–13. As demonstrated below, the 8 patents that Plaintiff would
`select present unique issues of liability and damages. Thus, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the
`Court reconsider its Order.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`Precluding Plaintiffs from asserting at least 8 patents is a violation of Plaintiffs’ due process
`rights, because
`
` This would be the
`
`
`
`
`loss of a significant and “tangible right.” Katz, 639 F.3d at 1312.
`
`US 8458022
`
`-4-
`
` Page 7
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 10907
`
`
`. See Ex. A.1
`
`
`
`
` See id.
` However, since some patents have expired, the result
`with fewer than 8 patents is that even if Plaintiffs were successful on every one,
`
`
`In addition, because PLD is a plaintiff in only the -283 Case—as a co-owner of just the 9
`patents asserted therein and not of the 6 patents asserted in the -284 and -285 Cases—treating all
`3 cases as though they were a single case for the purpose of narrowing asserted patents and claims
`will present other collateral due process concerns. For example, limiting Plaintiffs to fewer than
`8 total patents across all three cases would potentially result in a disproportionate allocation of
`potential damages between the two Plaintiffs, as compared to the original set of 15 asserted patents.
`Because 8 patents is the minimum to allow Plaintiffs to seek full damages based on their
`original assertions against Tianma, the Court should permit Plaintiffs to assert up to 8 patents
`against Tianma.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`.
`
`Plaintiffs’ damages expert—Jonathan Kemmerer—incorporated
`into his analysis of the hypothetical negotiations between Plaintiffs and Tianma after consulting
`with longtime JDI employees concerning
`
`. Ex. B ¶ 187; Ex. C at 192:16–193:18.
`
`
` See Ex. B ¶ 187; see also Patent Database Search
`Results, USPTO, https://tinyurl.com/y4zzpmmj (last visited Nov. 24, 2021). Thus, when Mr.
`Kemmerer spoke with individuals responsible for JDI’s licensing, they told him that
`
`
`
`1 Exhibits cited herein are attached to the Declaration of Jeffrey T. Han accompanying this motion.
`
`US 8458022
`
`-5-
`
` Page 8
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 10908
`
`
`” Ex. B ¶ 187; see also Ex. C at 193:16–18 (Mr. Kemmerer confirming that
`).
`
`
`
`Mr. Kemmerer therefore applied
`
` as part of his damages analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. ¶ 185. The tables below from Mr.
`
`
` Ex. B ¶ 184.
`
`Kemmerer’s report reflect
`
`Id. ¶¶ 188–89.
`Ultimately, Mr. Kemmerer offered calculations for damages separately for each asserted
`patent and also for each of the three consolidated cases based on
`
`See Ex. D at Ex. JEK-3B SUPP at 1–2, Ex. JEK-4B SUPP at 1, Ex. JEK-5A SUPP at 1. Organizing
`his calculations in this way assists the finder of fact because he could not predict at the time which
`specific patents would be brought to trial. However, Mr. Kemmerer made it clear that
`
`
`US 8458022
`
`-6-
`
` Page 9
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 10909
`
`
`e.g., Ex. B ¶ 190 n.405.
`
`2.
`
`
` See,
`
`.
`
`
`
` is consistent with the efficient administration
`and management of these cases.2 However, to avoid depriving Plaintiffs of due process, the Court
`should permit Plaintiffs to assert
`
`. To allow Plaintiffs the
`opportunity to secure adequate compensation for Tianma’s infringement,
`
` This is primarily due to the fact that 3 of Plaintiffs’ asserted
` expired around the time of Plaintiffs’ complaints.
`patents with
`Narrowing the case to fewer than 8 patents would therefore
`
` and violate Plaintiffs’ due process
`rights. See Katz, F.3d at 1312 (explaining “unique issues as to . . . damages” warrant expansion
`of asserted claims).
`
`
`a)
`Plaintiffs seek to assert the ’429, ’118, and ’119 Patents against Tianma, each of which
`represents a significant tangible right that could be lost through narrowing of the case because
` but they have also now
`expired. The exclusion of any 1 of these 3 patents would have an impact of up to
`
`on Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against Tianma, and all 3 would have an impact of nearly
`
` See Ex. D at Ex. JEK-3B SUPP at 1. For these 3 patents, Plaintiffs allege that they are
`entitled to damages for the period from
`
`
`2 Of course, Plaintiffs would prefer to have the option to assert additional patents as a buffer to
`potential adverse findings of noninfringement or invalidity, but realize that some give and take is
`appropriate at this stage.
`
`US 8458022
`
`-7-
`
` Page 10
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 10910
`
`
` (see Ex. E at 23, 52), through the patents’ expiration on
`September 5, 2020, just 5 days after Plaintiffs filed suit against Tianma. On the other hand, the
`damages period for nearly all of Plaintiffs’ other asserted patents does not begin until the filing of
`the complaints on August 31, 2020. See Dkt. 200 (Plaintiffs stipulating to lack of notice under
`Section 287(a) for all but 4 of the 15 originally asserted patents). Thus, the damages period for
`the ’429, ’118, and ’119 Patents is almost completely separate from the damages period for the
`other asserted patents and presents unique issues of damages. In addition, the fact that there are
`fewer than 5 patents with any opportunity for pre-suit damages means that
`
`
`Furthermore, because the ’429, ’118, and ’119 Patents have expired, forcing Plaintiffs to
`drop these patents from this case would rob Plaintiffs of the ability to ever be fully compensated
`for infringement of these patents. With each passing day, the 6-year time limitation of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 286 results in a smaller damages window, meaning that even if Plaintiffs were able to later
`reassert these 3 expired patents against Tianma in a new lawsuit, the damages window would be
`severely shortened. Depriving Plaintiffs of this tangible right to seek adequate compensation for
`Tianma’s infringement would be a due process violation, and therefore the Court should permit
`Plaintiffs to continue to assert the ’429, ’118, and ’119 Patents against Tianma.
`b)
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
` Also, the ’429, ’118, and ’119 Patents expired just after
`Plaintiffs filed suit against Tianma. Therefore, Plaintiffs should also be permitted to assert
`
`
` Although Plaintiffs accuse different categories
`of Tianma’s LCD products of infringement under the different asserted patents (see technical
`
`US 8458022
`
`-8-
`
` Page 11
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 10911
`
`
` with these
`discussion below), Plaintiffs can obtain full product coverage and
`5 specific patents: from the -283 Case, the ’299 Patent; from the -284 Case, the ’409 Patent; and
`from the -285 Case, the ’665, ’142, and ’698 Patents.
`
` would therefore be a
`
`violation of due process.
`
`
` requiring Plaintiffs to move forward with fewer patents and give up significant
`damages would be a violation of due process. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the
`Court reconsider its Order and permit Plaintiffs to proceed with 8 patents.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ 8 Selected Patents Also Have Unique Issues Relating to
`Infringement and Validity.
`The 8 patents that Plaintiffs seek to assert against Tianma also have unique issues relating
`to infringement and validity that make any further narrowing inappropriate and a violation of
`Plaintiffs’ due process rights under Katz. While the expired ’429, ’118, and ’119 Patents are
`related, their asserted claims are unique and involve non-overlapping issues. Indeed, the ’118
`Patent is asserted against an entirely different category of Tianma’s products than the ’429 and
`’119 Patents. The other 5 patents Plaintiffs seek to assert are all unrelated, involve very different
`inventions, and therefore implicate entirely different issues for infringement and validity.
`Below, Plaintiffs provide summaries of the patents and Tianma’s invalidity allegations,
`demonstrating that each of the 8 patents involve unique issues of liability such that Plaintiffs should
`be allowed to assert all 8 patents against Tianma.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,936,429
`1.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’429 Patent in the -283 Case against a category of Tianma’s LCD
`products known as “LTPS” products. Plaintiffs have elected a single claim from the ’429 Patent:
`dependent claim 5. The ’429 Patent is generally directed to a “lateral electric field type” device
`which has a pair of opposed transparent substrates with liquid crystal between the substrates.
`Independent claim 1, from which asserted claim 5 depends, requires an LCD in which “the counter
`
`US 8458022
`
`-9-
`
` Page 12
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 10912
`
`
`electrode is disposed between the pixel electrode and the one of the pair of transparent substrates
`in overlapping relationship with the transparent electrode of the pixel electrode and the gate signal
`line, and the counter electrode is connected with the counter electrode of an adjacent pixel region.”
`’429 Patent cl. 1. In its invalidity argument, Tianma argues that the combination of Ohta-’044 and
`Miyahara-’867 renders claim 5 obvious.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,218,118
`2.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’118 Patent in the -283 Case against a different category of Tianma’s
`LCD products known as “a-Si IPS” products. These products comprise an entirely different set of
`products than the LTPS products accused under the ’429 Patent. The asserted independent claim
`requires an LCD device in which “the second electrode is overlapped with a plurality of the slits
`of the first electrode in the pixel region, the first electrode is overlapped with the drain signal line
`and the gate signal line; and wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is
`formed between the first substrate and the liquid crystal layer in the pixel region.” ’118 Patent cl.
`1. Tianma asserts that the combination of Ohta-’044 with Yuh-’368 renders this claim obvious.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,218,119
`3.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’119 Patent in the -283 Case against Tianma’s LTPS products.
`Plaintiffs have elected 6 claims from the ’119 Patent: claims 1, 3, 5, and 8–10. Claim 1, the only
`independent claim in the patent, requires an LCD in which “the second electrode is disposed
`between the first electrode and the one of the pair of transparent substrates, the second electrode
`is connected with the second electrode of an adjacent pixel region, and the connected second
`electrode is arranged at a position overlapping with the gate signal line.” ’119 Patent cl. 1. In its
`invalidity argument, Tianma argues that the combination of Ohta-’044 and Miyahara-’867 renders
`the asserted claims of the ’119 Patent obvious.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`4.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’299 Patent in the -283 Case against virtually all of Tianma’s accused
`products, including LTPS products and a-Si IPS products, as well as a third category known as “a-
`Si non-IPS” products. The ’299 Patent discloses a way to make LCD devices thinner. ’299 Patent
`
`US 8458022
`
`-10-
`
` Page 13
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 10913
`
`
`at 1:29–54. Whereas conventional devices had a protective member separated from the polarizing
`plate by a layer of air, id. at 13:36–42, adding to the thickness of the overall LCD, the ’299 Patent
`discloses attaching a resin film to the upper polarizing plate, id. at 13:53–14:19. The resin film
`reinforces the LCD panel, allowing for a thinner glass substrate than would otherwise be possible,
`thereby reducing the total panel thickness. In its invalidity argument, Tianma asserts multiple
`combinations of references against the ’299 Patent, primarily based on Maekawa-’171 in view of
`Takahata-’641, and in some combinations with additional references Nakanishi-’402 and/or the
`ACX399CMP-7 product.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,830,409
`5.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’409 Patent in the -284 Case against Tianma’s LTPS and a-Si IPS
`products. The ’409 Patent is the only unexpired patent
`
`. See Ex. E at 23, 52 (
`
`). Plaintiffs have elected 4 claims from the ’409 Patent: claims 1, 2, 4, and 7. The ’409 Patent
`is directed to an improvement to the electrostatic discharge in an LCD device. ’409 Patent at 1:8–
`10. The patent explains that “static electricity from the outside of the panels through a human
`body, or the like, may cause trouble with the panels.” Id. at 1:33–38. The claimed solution “flow[s]
`the static electricity through the dummy wiring to the ground electric potential of the external
`circuit” in order to “suppress transmission of static electricity to the peripheral circuit, and
`electrostatic discharge resistance is improved.” Id. at 7:4-12. In its invalidity case, Tianma asserts
`four combinations of prior art against the ’409 Patent, based on the primary reference Maeda-’932
`in view of each of the secondary references Li-’801, Ozawa-’622, the ACX302AK product, and
`the ACX306AK product.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,665
`6.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’665 Patent in the -285 Case against most of Tianma’s LTPS, a-Si IPS,
`and a-Si non-IPS products. Plaintiffs have elected 2 claims from the ’665 Patent: claims 1 and 3.
`The ’665 Patent discloses “a display device which enables reduction in size of a picture-frame-
`shaped region and prevents defective connection of a flexible board.” ’665 Patent at 1:65–67. In
`
`US 8458022
`
`-11-
`
` Page 14
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 10914
`
`
`particular, the ’665 Patent discloses a display device that includes an effective display section that
`is connected to a driving signal source through a connection part. See id. at 2:1–19. The
`connection part uses a novel configuration of structural elements, including connection pads and
`dummy pads, in order to prevent defective connections. Tianma contends that claim 1 is invalid
`based on (1) Monzen-’833 in view of Hasegawa-’059 or (2) the ACX399CMP-7 product in view
`of Monzen-’833. Tianma also asserts both of these combinations in further view of Maeda-’807.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,142
`7.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’142 Patent in the -285 Case against Tianma’s LTPS products.
`Plaintiffs intend to elect 2 claims from the ’142 Patent: claims 1 and 6. The ’142 patent is directed
`to “a liquid crystal display device, and more particularly, to a liquid crystal display device having
`upper and lower electrodes interposing an insulation layer therebetween in which an electric field
`opening part for passing an electric field is formed in the upper electrode and liquid crystal
`molecules are driven by applying a voltage between the upper and lower electrodes.” ’142 Patent
`at 1:5–12. The patent addresses a problem associated with the orientation of liquid crystal in an
`LCD device wherein the orientation of the liquid crystal in certain regions potentially distorts the
`displayed image. The patent solves the problem that occurs when an electric field is applied to the
`liquid crystal and the liquid crystal either cannot be rotated or rotates in a different direction. This
`solution suppresses disclination issues and improves display quality. Id. at 3:30–32. Tianma
`argues that claims 1 and 6 of the ’142 Patent are rendered obvious by two combinations: (1) Fujita-
`’319 in view of Ono-’034 and (2) the ACX399CMP-7 product in view of Lee-’015 and No-’245.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,939,698
`8.
`Plaintiffs assert the ’698 Patent in the -285 Case against Tianma’s LTPS products.
`Plaintiffs have elected 2 claims from the ’698 Patent: claims 1 and 4. The ’698 patent addresses a
`manufacturing problem related to reducing the size of a pixel in a display causing display defects,
`“such as a luminance unevenness.” ’698 Patent at 2:56–65. The patent solves this problem by
`configuring the insulating layers and electrode layers in such a way that the upper electrode (e.g.,
`either the pixel electrode or common electrode, depending on the device configuration) either
`
`US 8458022
`
`-12-
`
` Page 15
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2017
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 230 Filed 11/30/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 10915
`
`
`overlaps partially with the through-hole or the upper electrode’s slit overlaps with part of the
`through-hole. See, e.g., id. at 4:61-64, 6:60-61. As a result, “this configuration facilitates the
`alignment film material to flow into the through-hole, thereby solving a thickness unevenness of
`the alignment film in vicinity of the through-hole.” Id. at Abstract. Tianma contends that the
`asserted claims of the ’698 Patent are invalid based on Tomioka-’623 alone, Tomioka-’623 in view
`of Ishigaki-’766, or Tianma’s TL049JDXP01 product alone.
`As demonstrated by these summaries, the 8 patents that Plaintiffs seek to assert against
`Tianma involve unique issues of infringement and validity. The patents claim an array of different
`inventions, such that additional patents cannot be eliminated as duplicative or redundant in favor
`of representative patents or claims. Under such circumstances, it would be improper and a
`violation of Plaintiffs’ due process rights to require Plaintiffs to proceed with fewer than 8 patents.
`See Katz, 639 F.3d at 1312–13.
`
`C.
`
`The Cases Have Not Been Consolidated for Trial and Plaintiffs’ Election of 8
`Patents Would Be Reasonable When Split Among 3 Trials.
`Although the Court consolidated these 3 cases “for all pretrial issues,” it specifically stated
`that the “[i]ndividual cases remain active for trial.” Dkt. 57 at 1–2. To date, there has been no
`order by the Court consolidating these cases for trial. Under this procedural posture, if each of the
`cases proceeds to trial separately, then Plaintiffs’ election of the 8 patents will result in no more
`than 4 patents being asserted in any case—the ’429, ’118, ’119, and ’299