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 MICROELECTRONICSCO.
`LID.,
`
`§
`§ C.A. NO. 2:20-cv-00283-JIRG
`§ [LEAD CASE]
`
`§ C.A. NO. 2:20-cv-00284-JRG
`§ C.A. NO. 2:20-cv-00285-JIRG
`§ [MEMBER CASES]
`§
`
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`§<
`
`n
`
`P.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 and the Court’s Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 34), Plaintiffs Japan
`
`Display Inc. and Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display Co., Ltd. (together, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant
`
`Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) file this joint claim
`
`construction and prehearing statement.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(a), the parties provide the following:
`
`1.
`
`The construction of those claim terms, phrases, or clauses on which the parties agree.
`
`The Parties have agreed on the construction of the following term in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,636,142:
`
`Agreed Construction “disclination” (claim 3)|a phenomenon in which the direction of rotation of liquid crystal
`
`molecules changes depending ontheir location
`
`Term
`
`US 8004581
`
`Page 1 of 27
`
`Tianma Exhibit 1021
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Each party’s proposed claim construction or indefiniteness position for each disputed
`claim term, phrase, or clause, together with an identification of all references from
`the specification or prosecution history that support that position, and an
`identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends to rely
`either to support its position or to oppose any other party’s position, including, but
`not limited to, as permitted by law, dictionary definitions, citations to learned treatises
`and prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert witnesses.
`
`Plaintiffs’ identification of proposed constructions and supporting evidence is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Defendant’s identification of proposed constructions and supporting evidence is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`3.
`
`The anticipated length of time necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`The Parties anticipate three (3) hours as the total length of time necessary for the Claim
`
`Construction Hearing, which is currently set for August 11, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas.
`
`4.
`
`Whether any party proposes to call one or more witnesses, including experts, at the
`Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`At this time, the Parties do not intend to call any witnesses at the Claim Construction
`
`Hearing.
`
`5.
`
`A list of any other issues which might appropriately be taken up at a prehearing
`conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing, and proposed dates, if not
`previously set, for any such prehearing conference.
`
`At this time, the Parties have no issues that might appropriately be taken up at a prehearing
`
`conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`Dated: May 26, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Eric J. Klein
`Eric J. Klein
`Lead Attorney
`Texas Bar No. 24041258
`Jeffrey R. Swigart
`Texas Bar No. 24102553
`VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
`
`
`/s/ James R. Barney
`James R. Barney (pro hac vice)
`james.barney@finnegan.com
`Qingyu Yin (pro hac vice)
`qingyu.yin@finnegan.com
`Aidan C. Skoyles (pro hac vice)
`aidan.skoyles@finnegan.com
`
`US 8004581
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 27
`
`

`

`FINNEGAN LLP
`901 New York Avenue N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`
`Eric H. Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789886
`Brian Craft
`State Bar No. 04972020
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 N. College Ave., Ste. 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`(903) 534-1100 Telephone
`(903) 534-1137 Facsimile
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Tianma Microelectronics, Co. Ltd.
`
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (210) 220-7700
`Facsimile: (210) 220-7716
`Email: eklein@velaw.com
`Email: jswigart@velaw.com
`
`Hilary L. Preston
`Texas State Bar No. 24062946
`Jeffrey T. Han
`Texas Bar No. 24069870
`Erik Shallman
`Texas State Bar No. 24113474
`Matthew J. Melançon
`Texas Bar No. 24109544
`VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
`2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100
`Austin, TX 78746
`Telephone: (512) 542-8400
`Facsimile: (512) 542-8612
`Email: hpreston@velaw.com
`Email: jhan@velaw.com
`Email: eshallman@velaw.com
`Email: mmelancon@velaw.com
`
`Abigail Lubow
`California State Bar No. 314396
`VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`94105 Telephone: (415) 979-6963
`Facsimile: (415) 358-5770
`Email: alubow@velaw.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. and
`PANASONIC LIQUID CRYSTAL
`DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`
`US 8004581
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 27
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on May 26, 2021. As of this date all counsel
`
`of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this document
`
`through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
`
`/s/ Eric J. Klein
`Eric J. Klein
`
`US 8004581
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 27
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 27
`
`Page 5 of 27
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`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
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC., PANASONIC
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`1
`
`Ex. A, Plaintiffs’ Claim Construction Chart
`
`Page 6 of 27
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,218,119eeOEOE
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))|Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supporting Evidence
`
`
`Construction
`
`°119 patent: Abstract; 1:33-2:18, 2:39-3:26,
`Noconstruction
`“the connected
`
`second electrode” necessary; plain and|5:65-6:12, 6:29-6:33, 6:39-6:61, 7:48-7:59,
`(claim 1)
`ordinary meaning.
`8:4-8:8, 8:38-8:45, 9:48-9:59,
`10:4-10:13,
`10:47-10:57,
`11:19-22, 12:15-12:21,
`13:3-
`13:12, 13:32-14:41, 14:47-52, 15:1-13, 15:36-
`15:39, 15:52-57, 16:15-67, 17:41-51, 17:58-
`17:67, 19:13-19:28, 19:42-49, 19:62-20:60,
`21:35-21:40, 21:55-22:24, 22:55-23:40, 24:31-
`24:58, 25:8-30, 25:49-55, 26:1-6, 26:18-30,
`27:10-15, 27:29-38, 28:9-14, 28:21-34, 28:46-
`29:8, 29:29-29:51; claim 1, claim 2, claim 3,
`claim 5, claim 7, claim 8, claim 11; Figs. 1-4,
`
`7-10, and_corresponding13-34, 36-50
`
`
`disclosures.
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Aris Silzars
`
`Anyadditional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`region has... a first Expert Declaration of Dr. Aris Silzars
`
`“one ofthe pair of construction|’119 patent: Abstract; 1:33-3:31, 5:49-10:46,No
`
`
`transparent substrates|necessary; plain and}11:1-11:28, 12:4-29:56; claims 1-4, claim 7,
`
`having... aplurality|ordinary meaning. claim 8; Figs. 1-4, 6, 7A-B, 8A-B, 13, 14, 15-
`
`of pixel regions ... 34, 36-50 and correspondingdisclosures.
`wherein the pixel
`
`electrode” and a
`“second electrodeis
`disposed between the
`first electrode and the
`one of the pair of
`transparent
`substrates” (claim 1
`
`
`“the second construction|’119 patent: Abstract; 1:33-2:18, 2:39-3:26,No
`
`electrode” (claim 2) necessary; Plain and|5:65-6:12, 6:29-6:33, 6:39-6:61, 7:48-7:59,
`ordinary meaning.
`8:4-8:8, 8:38-8:45, 9:48-9:59, 10:4-10:13,
`10:47-10:57, 11:19-22, 12:15-12:21, 13:3-
`13:12, 13:32-14:41, 14:47-52, 15:1-13,
`15:36-15:39, 15:52-57, 16:15-67, 17:41-51,
`17:58-17:67, 19:13-19:28, 19:42-49, 19:62-
`20:60, 21:35-21:40, 21:55-22:24, 22:55-
`23:40, 24:31-24:58, 25:8-30, 25:49-55, 26:1-
`
`Any additional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`Page 7 of 27
`
`Ex. A, Plaintiffs’ Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`Term(s) (claim(s))|Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supporting Evidence
`
`
`Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6, 26:18-30, 27:10-15, 27:29-38, 28:9-14,
`28:21-34, 28:46-29:8, 29:29-29:51; claim 1,
`claim 2, claim 3, claim 5, claim 7, claim 8,
`claim 11; Figs. 1-4, 7-10, 13-34, 36-50 and
`correspondingdisclosures.
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Aris Silzars
`
`Anyadditional evidence relied on by
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
` construction|’429 patent: Abstract; 1:33-3:24, 5:36-10:40,“one ofthe pair of
`
` necessary; Plain and|10:62-11:22, 11:65-30:10; claims 1-5; Figs. 1-transparent substrates
`having ...aplurality|ordinary meaning.
`4, 6, 7A-B, 8A-B, 13-34, 36-50 and
`
` correspondingdisclosures.of pixel regions ...
`wherein the pixel
`region has .
`.
`. a pixel
`electrode” and a
`“counter electrode is
`disposed between the
`pixel electrode and
`the one ofthe pair of
`transparent
`substrates” (claim 1
`
`
`“the counter construction|’429 patent: Abstract; 1:25-2:12, 2:33-3:20,No
`
`electrode” (claim 5) necessary; Plain and|5:60-6:7, 6:24-6:28, 6:34-6:56, 7:43-7:54,
`ordinary meaning.
`7:66-8:3, 8:32-39, 9:43-53, 9:65-10:7, 10:41-
`51, 11:12-16, 12:9-16, 12:65-13:2, 13:28-
`15:9, 15:30-33, 15:45-50, 16:7-16:61, 17:35-
`17:45, 17:52-61, 19:6-21, 19:35-42, 19:55-
`20:58, 21:33-38, 21:53-22:23, 22:55-23:40,
`24:31-24:58, 25:8-25:30, 25:49-55, 26:1-6,
`26:18-26:30, 27:10-15, 27:29-38, 28:9-14,
`28:21-34; 28:46-29:8, 29:28-30:5; claim 1,
`claim 2, claim 5, claim 6; Figs. 1-4, 7-10, 13-
`34, 36-50 and corresponding disclosures.
`
`US. PatentNo.7,936,429
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Aris Silzars
`
`Any additional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Aris Silzars
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 27
`
`Ex. A, Plaintiffs’ Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))|Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supporting Evidence
`
`Defendant.
`
`U.S. PatentNo.10,139,687
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))|Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supporting Evidence
`
`
`Construction
`
`“the liquid crystal construction|’687 patent: 1:39-2:16, 19:3-11; claim 9, claimNo
`
`
`
`layer has mainly necessary; plain and|19; Figs. 1-4, 13-41, 43-50 and corresponding
`negative dielectric
`ordinary meaning
`disclosures.
`anisotropy”(claims
`9, 19)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Aris Silzars
`
`Any additional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,142
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`
`
`Construction Any additional evidence relied on by
`
`
`
`
`“Tal liquid crystal construction|7142 patent: Abstract; 1:5-67, 2:3-29, 2:32-44,No
`
`
`
`display device... necessary; Plain and|2:64-3:32, 4:44-5:22, 5:37-46, 5:61-64, 6:43-
`
`wherein .
`.
`. liquid
`ordinary meaning.
`8:15, 10:23-35, 10:64-11:15, 11:25-64; claim
`
`crystal molecules are
`1; Figs. 1-15 and corresponding disclosures.
`
`driven by applying a
`
`voltage between the
`
`lowerelectrode and
`
`
`the upperelectrode”
`claim 1
`
`Anyadditional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`Page 9 of 27
`
`Ex. A, Plaintiffs’ Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9.793.299
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any additional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“display device . construction|’299 patent: 1:30-2:36, 5:24-5:43, 5:59-6:29,. . No
`used in a hand-held
`necessary; plain and|8:15-59, 12:25-13:42, 13:53-14:5, 14:29-36,
`ordinary meaning.
`14:57-15:3, 15:53-16:6, 17:42-55, 18:29-42,
`electronic device”
`(claims 1, 6)
`19:16-37, 21:10-34; claim 1, claim 6, claim 12;
`Figs. 1-19 and corresponding disclosures.
`
`“a spacer formed on
`
`No construction|’132 Patent: Abstract; 1:62-2:3, 3:36-44, 4:38-
`necessary; Plain and|40, 4:53-57, 5:1-24, 6:3-17, 13:65-16:15, 16:65-
`an inner surface of
`ordinary meaning.
`17:55, 23:64-24:46, 30:36-67; claims 1, 3, 5, 8,
`the first substrate”
`(claims 1, 11)
`9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19; Figs. 1A, 1C, 3, 4A, 4C,
`SA, 5D, 6-9, 25-29 and corresponding
`disclosures.
`
`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`’132 Patent File History, Response and
`Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 (Dec.3,
`2014)
`
`Anyadditional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`?132 Patent: Abstract; 1:49-57, 5:1-24, 9:62-67,
`12:46-13:41, 14:50-55, 15:44-16:15, 16:19-35,
`claims 1, 11; Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C,
`5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 29 and corresponding
`disclosures.
`
`Any additional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`construction
`No
`necessary; Plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`“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,
`
`Page 10 of 27
`
`Ex. A, Plaintiffs’ Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`
`
`“a spacer formed on
`an inner surface of
`the first substrate”
`(claim 1)
`
`“
`
`reference
`a
`which
`electrode
`causes
`an electric
`field controlling the
`liquid
`crystal
`molecule
`to form
`between
`the
`reference electrode
`and
`the
`_—spixell
`electrode” (claim 1)
`
`construction
`necessary; Plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`construction
`No
`necessary; Plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`859 Patent: Abstract; 1:65-2:6, 3:39-59, 4:40-
`42, 4:55-59, 5:3-26, 6:6-20, 14:3-16:21, 17:1-
`17:60, 24:10-24:58, 30:50-31:6; claims 1, 4, 6,
`9, 10; Figs. 1A, 1C, 3, 4A, 4C, 5A, 5D, 6-9, 25-
`29 and correspondingdisclosures.
`
`Any additional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`859 Patent: Abstract; 1:52-60, 5:3-26, 9:65-
`10:3, 12:48-13:46, 14:55-62, 15:49-16:18,
`16:24-42, claim 1; Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 3, 4A, 4B,
`4C, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 29 and corresponding
`disclosures.
`
`Anyadditional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`Construction No
`
`
`
`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))|Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supporting Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,018,859
`
`“plane view”(claims
`1, 9, 13)
`
`construction
`No
`necessary; Plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`°859 Patent: 20:30-36, 20:56-60, 23:25-27,
`27:38-42; claims 1, 2, 9, 13; Figs. 1A, 2, 4A,
`5A, 17, 19A, 20A, 22A, 23, 24, 30A, 35, 36A,
`37A, 38A, 39A, 43 and corresponding
`disclosures.
`
`’859 Patent File History, Continuation
`Application (June 8, 2017)
`
`859 Patent File History, Office Action
`Summary (Sept. 8, 2017)
`
`Plan, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`Technical Terms 1607 (6th Ed. 2003).
`
`Plan, Webster's New Universal Unabridged
`Dictionary 1480 (1996).
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Aris Silzars
`
`Anyadditional evidence relied on by
`Defendant.
`
`Page 11 of 27
`
`6
`
`Ex. A, Plaintiffs’ Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`Term(s) (claim(s))|Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supporting Evidence
`
`
`Construction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7.385.665
`
`Defendant.
`
`“connection part” construction|665 Patent: Abstract, 1:49-59, 2:1-19, 3:28-46,No
`
`
`
`(claim 1) necessary; Plain and|4:1-6, 4:34-40, 5:8-39; claims 1, Figs 1, 2, 3A-
`ordinary meaning.
`D, 4, 5A-B, 6, 7 and corresponding disclosures.
`
`Anyadditional evidence relied on by
`
`Page 12 of 27
`
`Ex. A, Plaintiffs’ Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Page 13 of 27
`
`Page 13 of 27
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`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
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC., PANASONIC
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`DEFENDANT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`1
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`Page 14 of 27
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8.218.119
`
`
`“the connected Indefinite. This claim|’119 Patent at claims 1-2, FIGS. 1-2, 15-16,
`
`
`second electrode” term, read in light of|18, 21-24, 27-28, 31-32, 36-38, 40-41, 43,
`
`(claim 1)
`the patent’s
`Abstract, 1:40-67, 5:65-6:12, 13:32-14:52,
`
`specification and
`16:33-48, 17:45-67, 19:62-20:3, 28:21-34,
`
`prosecution history,
`29:39-51.
`
`
`fails to inform, with
`
`reasonable certainty,|Testimony of the named inventors and
`those skilled in the art|technical experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred
`
`aboutits scope
`Schubert, and/or Richard A. Flask on the
`
`because it fails to
`technology background, thestate oftheart at
`
`specify whetherit
`the time the patent claim waseffectively filed,
`
`tefers to the “second|the level of ordinary skill in the relevantart,
`
`electrode formed ofa|the meaning ofthis claim term as would be
`
`transparent electrode”|understood by one ofordinary skill in the art
`
`or the “second
`at the time of the alleged invention, how one
`
`electrode of an
`of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`adjacent pixel
`understood statements made during
`
`region.”
`prosecution of the application, whetherthis
`
`claim term should be construed as JDI or
`
`
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of
`this claim term, as well as testimony in
`
`response to JDI’s contentions, evidence, or
`
`expert testimony.
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`Supporting Evidence
`
`expert testimony.
`
`°119 Patent at claim 1, FIGS. 2-4, 6, 7B, 8B,
`Indefinite. This
`“one of the pair of
`
`transparent substrates|claim term, read in 13-14, 16-20, 22, 24-26, 28-30, 32-34, 38-39,
`
`having...aplurality|light of the patent’s 41, 43, 45, 47, Abstract, 1:40-48, 2:39-52,
`of pixel regions .. .
`specification and
`2:64-3:15, 6:57-61, 8:38-45, 12:4-13:18,
`wherein the pixel
`prosecution history,
`16:62-67, 23:4-21, 29:9-21.
`
`region has ...a first|fails to inform, with 7429 Patent at claim 1, FIGS. 2-4, 6, 7B, 8B,
`electrode” and a reasonable certainty,|13-14, 16-20, 22, 24-26, 28-30, 32-34, 38-39,
`
`“second electrode is_|those skilled in the art|41, 43, 45, 47, Abstract, 1:33-42, 2:33-46,
`
`disposed between the|about its scope 2:58-3:9, 6:52-56, 8:32-39, 11:65-13:14,
`first electrode and the|because the substrate|16:56-61, 23:4-21, 29:9-21.
`one of the pair of
`cannot“have” the
`
`transparent first electrode while|Testimony of the namedinventors and
`
`substrates” (claim 1)|simultaneously the technical experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred
`second electrode “is|Schubert, and/or Richard A. Flask on the
`disposed between”
`technology background, the state of the art at
`the first electrode and|the time the patent claim waseffectively filed,
`the substrate.
`the level of ordinary skill in the relevantart,
`the meaning of this claim term as would be
`understoodby one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the alleged invention, how one
`of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood statements made during
`prosecution of the application, whetherthis
`claim term should be construed as JDI or
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of
`this claim term, as well as testimony in
`response to JDI’s contentions, evidence, or
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`’119 Patent at claims 1-2, FIGS. 1-2, 15-16,
`18, 21-24, 27-28, 31-32, 36-38, 40-41, 43,
`Abstract, 1:40-67, 5:65-6:12, 13:32-14:52,
`16:33-48, 17:45-67, 19:62-20:3, 28:21-34,
`29:39-51.
`
`
`
`
`“the second
`Indefinite. This
`electrode” (claim 2)
`claim term, read in
`
`light of the patent’s
`
`specification and
`
`prosecution history,
`
`
`fails to inform, with
`
`Testimony of the namedinventors and
`reasonable certainty,
`technical experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred
`those skilled in the art
`
`aboutits scope
`Schubert, and/or Richard A. Flask on the
`
`technology background, the state of the art at
`because it fails to
`
`the time the patent claim waseffectively filed,
`specify whetherit
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the relevantart,
`refers to the “second
`
`the meaning of this claim term as would be
`electrode formed of a
`
`transparent electrode”
`understoodby one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, how one
`or the “second
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have
`electrode of an
`
`understood statements made during
`adjacent pixel
`
`prosecution of the application, whether this
`region.”
`
`claim term should be construed as JDI or
`
`
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of
`this claim term, as well as testimony in
`
`response to JDI’s contentions, evidence, or
`
`expert testimony.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`and the substrate. Supporting Evidence
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`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
`aboutits scope
`becausethe substrate
`cannot“have”the
`pixel electrode while
`simultaneously the
`counter electrode “‘is
`disposed between”
`the pixel electrode
`
`“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)
`
` Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,936,429
`
`429 Patentat claim 1, FIGS. 2-4, 6, 7B, 8B,
`13-14, 16-20, 22, 24-26, 28-30, 32-34, 38-39,
`41, 43, 45, 47, Abstract, 1:33-42, 2:33-46,
`2:58-3:9, 6:52-56, 8:32-39, 11:65-13:14,
`16:56-61, 23:4-21, 29:9-21.
`°119 Patent at claim 1, FIGS. 2-4, 6, 7B, 8B,
`13-14, 16-20, 22, 24-26, 28-30, 32-34, 38-39,
`41, 43, 45, 47, Abstract, 1:40-48, 2:39-52,
`2:64-3:15, 6:57-61, 8:38-45, 12:4-13:18,
`16:62-67, 23:4-21, 29:9-21.
`
`Testimony of the namedinventors and
`technical experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred
`Schubert, and/or Richard A. Flask on the
`technology background, the state ofthe art at
`the time the patent claim waseffectively filed,
`the level of ordinary skill in the relevantart,
`the meaning of this claim term as would be
`understoodby one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the alleged invention, how one
`of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood statements made during
`prosecution of the application, whether this
`claim term should be construed as JDI or
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of
`this claim term, as well as testimony in
`response to JDI’s contentions, evidence, or
`expert testimony.
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`429 Patent at claims 1, 5, FIGS. 1-2, 15-16,
`18, 21-24, 27-28, 31-32, 36-38, 40-41, 43,
`Abstract, 1:33-61, 5:60-6:7, 13:28-14:48,
`16:26-42, 17:39-61, 19:55-63, 28:21-34,
`29:39-51.
`
`
`
`
`“the counter
`Indefinite. This
`electrode” (claim 5)
`claim term, read in
`
`light of the patent’s
`
`specification and
`
`prosecution history,
`
`
`fails to inform, with
`
`Testimony of the namedinventors and
`reasonable certainty,
`technical experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred
`those skilled in the art
`
`aboutits scope
`Schubert, and/or Richard A. Flask on the
`
`technology background, the state of the art at
`because it fails to
`
`the time the patent claim waseffectively filed,
`specify whetherit
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the relevantart,
`refers to the “counter
`
`the meaning of this claim term as would be
`electrode formed of a
`
`transparent electrode”
`understoodby one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, how one
`or the “counter
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have
`electrode of an
`
`understood statements made during
`adjacent pixel
`
`prosecution of the application, whether this
`region.”
`
`claim term should be construed as JDI or
`
`
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of
`this claim term, as well as testimony in
`
`response to JDI’s contentions, evidence, or
`
`expert testimony.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,139,687
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`°687 Patent at claims 9, 19, 19:3-11.
`
`Construction
`
`“the liquid crystal
`Indefinite. This
`layer has mainly
`claim term, read in
`
`Testimony of the named inventors and
`negative dielectric
`light of the patent’s
`
`technical experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred
`anisotropy”(claims
`specification and
`
`Schubert, and/or Richard A. Flask on the
`9, 19)
`prosecution history,
`
`fails to inform, with|technology background,the state of theart at
`
`reasonable certainty,|the time the patent claim waseffectively filed,
`
`those skilled in the art|the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art,
`
`aboutits scope
`the meaning of this claim term as would be
`
`because the intrinsic|understood by oneofordinary skill in the art
`
`record of the patent
`at the time of the alleged invention, how one
`
`fails to set forth how|of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`to objectively
`understood statements made during
`
`measure whether the|prosecution of the application, whether this
`
`dielectric anisotropy|claim term should be construedas JDI or
`
`
`ofthe liquid crystal
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of
`layer is “mainly”
`this claim term, as well as testimony in
`
`negative.
`response to JDI’s contentions, evidence, or
`
`expert testimony.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,142
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`’142 Patent at claim 1, FIGS. 1-3, 13,
`Plain and ordinary
`“Tal liquid crystal
`Abstract, 1:5-26, 2:64-3:20, 4:44-58, 6:17-
`meaning. This
`.
`display device. .
`
`
`.wherein . limitation requires not|33, 6:43-57, 7:1-14, 9:12-27, 10:1-4, 11:1-. liquid
`
`
`
`
`crystal molecules are|merely capability or 15, 11:25-41.
`
`driven by applying a_|configuration, but
`
`voltage between the|actually driving liquid|Testimony of the named inventors and
`
`
`lower electrode and__|crystal molecules by technical experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred
`
`
`
`the upper electrode”|applying a voltage Schubert, and/or Richard A. Flask on the
`
`(claim 1)
`between the lower
`technology background, the state ofthe art at
`
`electrode and the
`the time the patent claim waseffectively
`
`upperelectrode.
`filed, the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art, the meaning of this claim term
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, how one ofordinary
`skill in the art
`
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`would have understood statements made
`during prosecution of the application,
`whetherthis claim term should be construed
`as JDI or Tianma contends, and the
`indefiniteness of this claim term, as well as
`testimony in response to JDI’s contentions,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`evidence, or expert testimony.
`
`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s)) “display device .
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`.. This preamble claim|’299 Patent at claims 1, 6, 12, FIGS. 1, 4, 6,
`
`
`
`term is limiting
`8A-8B, 9, 11A-11C, 13A-13C, 15A-15C, 1:30-
`used in a hand-held
`
`becauseit recites
`39, 1:55-64, 2:8-17, 5:24-43, 6:13-29, 8:16-59,
`electronic device”
`(claims 1, 6)
`essential structure or|9:4-39, 12:25-67, 13:1-19, 14:57-15:3, 15:58-
`steps, or is necessary|16:6, 17:42-55, 18:29-42, 19:17-37, 21:10-29.
`
`to givelife,
`
`meaning, and vitality|Testimony of the named inventors and technical
`to the claims. See,
`experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred Schubert,
`e.g., Catalina Mktg.|and/or Richard A.Flask on the technology
`
`Int'l Inc. v.
`background,the state of the art at the time the
`
`Coolsavings.com,
`patent claim waseffectively filed, the level of
`
`Inc., 289 F.3d 801,
`ordinary skill in the relevantart, the meaning of
`
`808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).|this claim term as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in theart at the time of the
`
`alleged invention, how oneofordinary skill in
`Plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. This
`the art would have understood statements made
`
`
`limitation requires
`during prosecution of the application, whether
`not merely
`this claim term should be construed as JDI or
`
`
`capability or
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of this
`configuration, but
`claim term, as well as testimony in response to
`
`actual use in a hand-|JDI’s contentions, evidence, or expert
`
`held electronic
`testimony.
`
`device.
`
`
`Page 21 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,132
`
` Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a spacer formed in
`“a spacer formed on
`132 Patent at claims 1, 11, FIGS. 6-7, 29,
`direct contact with
`Abstract, 1:62-2:3, 3:36-55, 5:1-9, 6:5-17,
`an inner surface of
`
`
`an inner surface of
`14:25-30, 15:26-42, 16:13-15, 16:65-55,
`the first substrate”
`(claims 1, 11)
`the first substrate
`23:65-64:5, 24:30-46.
`°859 Patent at claims 1, 4, FIGS. 6-7, 29,
`
`Abstract, 1:65-2:6, 3:40-59, 5:4-12, 6:6-20,
`14:30-35, 15:31-47, 16:19-21, 17:5-60, 24:11-
`
`
`18, 24:41-59.
`
`
`Testimony of the named inventors and technical
`experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred Schubert,
`and/or Richard A. Flask on the technology
`background,the state of the art at the time the
`patent claim waseffectively filed, the level of
`ordinary skill in the relevantart, the meaning of
`this claim term as would be understood by one
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`alleged invention, how oneof ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood statements made
`during prosecution of the application, whether
`this claim term should be construed as JDI or
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of this
`claim term, as well as testimony in response to
`JDI’s contentions, evidence, or expert
`
` testimony.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 27
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`Term(s) (claim(s)) “a reference
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`”132 Patent at claims 1, 11, FIGS. 1A, 6-9,
`meaning. This
`electrode which
`Abstract, 1:49-57, 5:1-24, 12:59-65, 13:36-41.
`
`limitation requires
`causes an electric
`°859 Patent at claim 1, FIGS. 1A, 6-9, Abstract,
`
`field controlling the|that the reference
`52-60, 5:3-26, 12:64-13:3, 13:41-46.
`
`liquid crystal
`electrode not merely
`
`Testimony of the named inventors and technical
`molecule to form
`be capable of
`
`between the
`causing or
`experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred Schubert,
`
`
`reference electrode|configured to cause, and/or Richard A. Flask on the technology
`
`and the pixel
`but actually cause,
`background,the state of the art at the time the
`
`
`electrode” (claims 1,|an electric field patent claim waseffectively filed, the level of
`
`11)
`controlling the liquid
`ordinary skill in the relevantart, the meaning of
`
`crystal molecule to
`this claim term as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in theart at the time of the
`form between the
`
`alleged invention, how oneofordinary skill in
`reference electrode
`
`and the pixel
`the art would have understood statements made
`
`
`during prosecution of the application, whether
`electrode.
`this claim term should be construed as JDI or
`
`
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness ofthis
`claim term, as well as testimony in response to
`
`JDI’s contentions, evidence, or expert
`
`testimony.
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 27
`
`10
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,018,859
`
`Term(s) (claim(s))
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“a spacer formed on|a spacer formed in °859 Patent at claims 1, 4, FIGS.6-7, 29,
`direct contact with
`an inner surface of
`Abstract, 1:65-2:6, 3:40-59, 5:4-12, 6:6-20,
`
`an inner surface of
`the first substrate”
`14:30-35, 15:31-47, 16:19-21, 17:5-60, 24:11-
`
`the first substrate
`(claim 1)
`18, 24:41-59.
`
`’132 Patent at claims 1, 11, FIGS. 6-7, 29,
`
`Abstract, 1:62-2:3, 3:36-55, 5:1-9, 6:5-17,
`
`14:25-30, 15:26-42, 16:13-15, 16:65-55,
`
`
`23:65-64:5, 24:30-46.
`
`Testimony of the named inventors and technical
`experts Bruce W. Smith, E. Fred Schubert,
`
`and/or Richard A. Flask on the technology
`
`background,the state of the art at the time the
`
`patent claim waseffectively filed, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevantart, the meaning of
`
`this claim term as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention, how oneof ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood statements made
`
`
`during prosecution of the application, whether
`this claim term should be construed as JDI or
`
`
`Tianma contends, and the indefiniteness of this
`claim term, as well as testimony in response to
`
`JDI’s contentions, evidence, or expert
`
`
` testimony.
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 27
`
`11
`
`Ex. B, Defendant’s Claim Construction Chart
`
`

`

`Term(s) (claim(s)) “a reference
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`