IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEODRON LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01115
`Patent No. 8,946,574
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,946,574
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Notices, Statements and Payment of Fees ..................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 2
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................. 2
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................. 3
`
`III. Grounds for Standing ..................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. Fees under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ...................................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`The ’574 Patent and Prosecution History ...................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’574 Patent .................................................................................... 3
`
`The ’574 Prosecution History .............................................................. 5
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ............................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................................ 5
`
`Challenges ............................................................................................ 6
`
`VII. Discretionary Considerations ........................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Prior Art was Not Considered During Prosecution ...................... 7
`
`The General Plastics Factors Favor Institution ................................... 7
`
`The Fintiv Factors Strongly Favor Institution ...................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that
`one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; ...................... 9
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; .......... 9
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties; ........................................................................................ 9
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding; .................................................................... 9
`
`whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and ............................................ 9
`
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits. ................................................. 9
`
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art .............................................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................12
`
`State of the Art ...................................................................................12
`
`IX. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`“the substrate, with drive or sense electrodes of a touch sensor
`disposed on a first surface and a second surface of the substrate,
`the first surface being opposite the second surface, the drive or
`sense electrodes being made of a conductive mesh conductive
`material comprising metal” (claims 1, 8) ...........................................16
`
`B.
`
`“conductive mesh [of] conductive material” (claims 1, 8, 15) ..........16
`
`X. Detailed Explanation and Supporting Evidence .......................................... 17
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-15 Are Obvious Over Hsu
`and Mozdzyn ......................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of Hsu ......................................................................17
`
`Summary of Mozdzyn ..............................................................18
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis ..........................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-15 Are Obvious Over Hsu
`and Philipp ..........................................................................................43
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Philipp .................................................................43
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis ..........................................................45
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-15 Are Obvious Over Hsu
`and Chang ...........................................................................................59
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Chang ..................................................................59
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis ..........................................................60
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 4, 6, 11, and 13 Are Obvious Over Hsu in
`view of Chang and Frey. ....................................................................71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Frey .....................................................................71
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis ..........................................................72
`
`XI. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ......................................... 76
`
`XII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Apple v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................... 8, 9, 11
`
`ArthroCare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`406 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Comcast Cable Communs. Corp. v. Finisar Corp.,
`571 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2008) .................................... 27, 30, 32
`
`Eli Lily & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 27
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357 Paper 19 (PTAB. Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................. 7
`
`HP Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00459, Paper 17 (PTAB Sep. 14, 2020) .......................................passim
`
`In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig,
`301 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 29
`
`In re Japikse,
`181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950) .............................................................................. 71
`
`In re Kuhle,
`526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) ................................................................................ 71
`
`In re O’Farrell,
`853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 66
`
`In re Vaeck,
`947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ...................................................................... 67, 69
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 66
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kavo Dental Tech., LLC v. Osseso Imaging LLC,
`IPR2020-00671, Paper 10 (PTAB July 1, 2020) ................................................ 10
`
`Neodron Ltd. v. Fujitsu Ltd et al.,
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00239-RFG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) .................................................. 2
`
`Neodron Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00241-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ................................................... 2
`
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 12, 2018) .................................................. 8
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ......................................... 9, 11
`
`Std. Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus.,
`953 F.2d 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 25
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19................................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................ 16, 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 3, 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 (downloaded
`from PAIR)
`
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,860 (“Hsu”)
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0007011 (“Mozdzyn”)
`
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,305,017 (“Gerpheide”)
`
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,880,411 (“Gillespie”)
`
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0158167 (“Hotelling”)
`
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0045632 (“Yilmaz”)
`
`Exhibit 1010 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0123670 (“Philipp”)
`
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0002337 A1 (“Chang”)
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0219257 A1 (“Frey”)
`Francis Preston Sears, Electricity and Magnetism (1st Ed., 5th
`Print. 1951)
`Exhibit 1014 William R. Smythe, Static and Dynamic Electricity (2nd Ed.
`1950)
`
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427
`
`Exhibit 1016 U.S. Patent No. 7,129,935
`
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0026664
`
`Exhibit 1018 Local Patent Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Chart and
`Prehearing Statement in Neodron Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., Case
`No. 2:20-cv-00241, Dkt. 47 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2021)
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1019 Order adopting agreed claim constructions in Neodron Ltd. v.
`Panasonic Corp., Case No. 2:20-cv-00241, Dkt. 48 (E.D. Tex.
`Mar. 10, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Panasonic Corporation (“Panasonic” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-15 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,946,574 (“’574 patent,” EX1001), purportedly owned by Neodron Ltd.
`
`(“Neodron” or “Patent Owner”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This IPR is nearly identical to another IPR involving both Neodron and the
`
`’574 patent. See HP Inc. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00459, Paper 17 (PTAB Sep.
`
`14, 2020) (Institution Decision). That IPR was instituted on the same grounds as
`
`set forth in this Petition. Id., Paper 17. As it did for the previous IPR, the Board
`
`should also institute this IPR challenging the same claims of the ’574 patent.
`
`The independent claims of the ’574 patent are directed toward touch sensors
`
`that can be used over display devices, a combination typically referred to in the art
`
`as a touchscreen. The touch sensors of the independent claims have conventional
`
`constructions whose only potentially distinguishing characteristic as argued in the
`
`prosecution history is that a portion of a second cover sheet is positioned between a
`
`second surface of a substrate and a display. However, as demonstrated in this
`
`Petition, a second cover sheet positioned between a second surface of a substrate
`
`and a display in touchscreens was well-known in the art prior to the ’574 patent, as
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`were the other limitations of the claims. Accordingly, the challenged claims of the
`
`’574 patent are unpatentable in view of the prior art cited in this Petition.
`
`II. NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic
`
`Corporation of North America. No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or
`
`otherwise has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s
`
`participation in any resulting IPR.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Neodron has asserted the ’574 patent in litigation captioned Neodron Ltd. v.
`
`Panasonic Corp. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00241-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) and
`
`Neodron Ltd. v. Fujitsu Ltd et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00239-RFG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner designates lead and back-up counsel as noted below. Power of
`
`attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompanies this Petition.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Christopher TL Douglas, Reg. No.
`56,950
`Alston & Bird LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280
`Phone: 704.444.1000
`Fax: 704.444.1111
`Christopher.Douglas@alston.com
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`H. James Abe, Reg. No. 61,182
`Alston & Bird LLP
`333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Phone: 213.576.1000
`Fax: 213.576.1100
`James.Abe@alston.com
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Caleb J. Bean, Reg. No. 72,837
`Alston & Bird LLP
`333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Phone: 213.576.1000
`Fax: 213.576.1100
`Caleb.Bean@alston.com
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at the address above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the email addresses listed
`
`above in the preceding section.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’574 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review.
`
`IV. FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioner submits the fees under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103.
`
`V. THE ’574 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`A. The ’574 Patent
`
`The ’574 patent generally relates to touch sensors. EX1001, 1:10. The title
`
`of the ’574 patent is “Two Layer Sensor Stack,” but as indicated in the ’574
`
`patent’s “Background” section, touch screens in mutual-capacitance configurations
`
`with two layers of overlapping electrodes separated by a dielectric layer were well
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`known. EX1001, 1:37-42. The independent claims of the ’574 patent are directed
`
`to general features of a touchscreen in a mutual capacitance configuration whereby
`
`the distinguishing feature advocated by the Applicant in the prosecution history
`
`was that “a portion of the second cover sheet is positioned between the second
`
`surface of the substrate and the display” as recited in the independent claims.
`
`EX1001, 15:10-26, 16:14-27; EX1003, 56-59. Representative independent claim 8
`
`is as follows:
`
`[8.pre] A device comprising:
`[8.a] a first cover sheet;
`[8.b] a first optically clear adhesive layer (OCA) between the
`first cover sheet and a substrate;
`[8.c] the substrate, with drive or sense electrodes of a touch
`sensor disposed on a first surface and a second surface of the
`substrate, the first surface being opposite the second surface, the drive
`or sense electrodes being made of a conductive mesh conductive
`material comprising metal;
`[8.d] a display separated from the second surface of the
`substrate by a second OCA and a second cover sheet such that at
`least a portion of the second cover sheet is positioned between the
`second surface of the substrate and the display; and
`[8.e] one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage
`media embodying logic that is configured when executed to control
`the touch sensor.
`
`Annotated Figure 1 is illustrated below and mapped to representative
`
`independent claim 8:
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’574 Prosecution History
`
`The relevant portions of the ’574 patent’s prosecution history are discussed
`
`in Section VII below. See EX1003. As discussed in that section, the primary
`
`reference for all four grounds of this Petition, as well as the secondary references
`
`for the first three grounds of this Petition, were not before the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’574 patent.
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`The challenges in this Petition are based on the following prior art
`
`references:
`
`1. Hsu (EX1004), U.S. patent No. 7,030,860, issued on April 18, 2006. Hsu
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2. Mozdzyn (EX1005), U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0007011, was published on
`
`January 13, 2011 for an application filed on June 26, 2010. Mozdzyn is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`3. Philipp (EX1010), U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0123670, was published on
`
`May 20, 2010 for an application filed on April 10, 2009. Philipp is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (pre-AIA).
`
`4. Chang (EX1011), U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0002337, was published on
`
`January 1, 2009 for an application filed on May 16, 2008. Chang is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`5. Frey (EX1012), U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0219257, was published on
`
`September 3, 2009 for an application filed on February 26, 2009. Frey is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`B. Challenges
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-15 of the ’574
`
`patent based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1-4, 6-11, and 13-15
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§103
`
`Hsu and Mozdzyn
`
`1-4, 6-11, and 13-15
`
`§103
`
`Hsu and Philipp
`
`1-3, 7-10, and 14-15
`
`§103
`
`Hsu and Chang
`
`4, 6, 11, and 13
`
`§103
`
`Hsu, Chang, and Frey
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`VII. DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS
`
`A. The Prior Art was Not Considered During Prosecution
`
`The prior art cited in the instant petition was not cited and is different from
`
`the prior art considered by the Examiner during original prosecution of the ’574
`
`patent. Accordingly, this petition is not redundant to the original examination for
`
`purposes § 325(d).
`
`B.
`
`The General Plastics Factors Favor Institution
`
`Any argument by Neodron that the Board should exercise its discretion
`
`under General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-
`
`01357 should be rejected because Petitioner here is different and not in privity with
`
`the petitioners in the prior IPR2020-00459. At the time IPR2020-00459 was filed
`
`on February 15, 2020, Petitioner had not been sued. Accordingly, Factor 1 favors
`
`institution. Factors 2 and 4 also favor institution because Petitioner did not know
`
`the prior art at the time the first petition was filed. Here, Petitioner answered the
`
`complaint on December 10, 2020.
`
`Factors 3 and 6 also favor institution because IPR2020-00459 was instituted
`
`and the Board considered the merits to be strong, but only terminated because the
`
`parties in IPR2020-00459 reached a settlement. HP Inc. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-
`
`00459, Paper 17 at 43. There is no concern of a petitioner abusing the process here
`
`given that Petitioner had no connection to the prior IPR.
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Factor 5 also favors institution. Here, Petitioner answered the complaint on
`
`December 10, 2020 after initial settlement discussions failed. By that time, the time
`
`to join IPR2020-00459 had long passed. Thereafter, Petitioner and Neodron
`
`continued to discuss an early resolution, but no settlement materialized. The time
`
`elapsed between the petitions are an artifact of Neodron’s litigation strategy against
`
`multiple companies and the parties’ attempt to resolve the matter amicably, though
`
`thus far unsuccessfully.
`
`C. The Fintiv Factors Strongly Favor Institution
`
`The Board should not deny institution based on the pendency of Neodron’s
`
`district court case. In NHK Spring, the Board denied institution in part because the
`
`district court case would resolve all issues before the Board. NHK Spring Co. v.
`
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sep. 12, 2018)
`
`(precedential). That is not the case here.
`
`The Board has since provided six factors to weigh when considering
`
`discretionary denial under NHK Spring:
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may
`be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`
`Apple v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 13-14 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential). Here, these factors favor institution.
`
`Factor 1 is neutral as a motion to stay has not been filed in this case. Sand
`
`Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“[W]e will not attempt
`
`to predict how the district court in the related district court litigation will proceed
`
`because the court may determine whether or not to stay any individual case,
`
`including the related one, based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our
`
`control and to which the Board is not privy.”).
`
`For Factor 2, a start of trial date has been set for December 6, 2021 in the co-
`
`pending district court case, but delays are possible given the ongoing pandemic,
`
`which is affecting the ability to conduct discovery in Japan.
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Factor 3 favors institution because the district court has not invested
`
`meaningful time into the case, the Parties have engaged in minimal discovery to
`
`date, and Neodron has not yet taken third-party discovery, which is where the
`
`relevant technical documents can be discovered. As of the date this Petition was
`
`filed, no depositions have been taken in the parallel district court case. Moreover,
`
`Neodron cannot show that any of the discovery in the district court proceedings has
`
`any relationship to the issues that will be decided here if the Board institutes trial.
`
`See Kavo Dental Tech., LLC v. Osseso Imaging LLC, IPR2020-00671, Paper 10 at
`
`22–23 (PTAB July 1, 2020) (Institution Decision) (considering whether the
`
`investment by the district court related to the issues before the Board). In addition,
`
`the Parties agreed on all constructions and no claim construction disputes were
`
`submitted to the court. See EX1018; EX1019. The district court did not invest any
`
`time into claim construction given the Parties’ agreement on all constructions.
`
`Factor 4 favors institution because the claims asserted in the district court
`
`case will likely be narrowed before trial, and the district court will leave the
`
`patentability of numerous claims unanswered. Furthermore, to eliminate any
`
`potential inefficiencies or overlap, Petitioner is prepared to stipulate to Neodron
`
`that, if IPR is instituted, Petition will not pursue in the district court action the
`
`same grounds. Thus, there will be no overlap of invalidity issues between this IPR
`
`and the district court action. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`See Sand Revolution II, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11-12; HP Inc. v. Neodron
`
`Ltd., IPR2020-00459, Paper No. 17 at 40-41.
`
`With respect to Factor 5, Petitioner is the defendant in the parallel district
`
`court proceeding.
`
`Factor 6 favors institution because the grounds herein provide a strong
`
`showing of obviousness. “[I]f the merits of a ground raised in the petition seem
`
`particularly strong on the preliminary record, this fact has favored institution.”
`
`Apple, Paper 11 at 14-15. This Petition is nearly identical to the petition that was
`
`previously instituted for the ’574 patent. See HP Inc. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-
`
`00459, Paper 17. In that decision, the Board held that the petitioner “met its
`
`burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`that challenged claims of the ’574 patent are unpatentable” and that “Petitioner’s
`
`case appears strong on the challenged claims.” Id. at 42-43; see Apple, IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11 at 14-15 (“[I]f the merits of a ground raised in the petition seem
`
`particularly strong on the preliminary record, this fact has favored institution.”);
`
`Sand Revolution II, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 13 (holding that when the Petition
`
`sets forth a strong case, “this factor weighs in favor of not exercising discretion to
`
`deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”). The Board held that “the Fintiv
`
`factors weigh against invoking our discretion to deny institution.” HP Inc.,
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2020-00459, Paper 17 at 43. In the prior IPR, before a decision was reached
`
`on the merits, the parties settled and terminated the IPR. Id., Papers 24 & 26.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A POSITA at the time of the ’574 patent’s earliest claimed priority date
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of
`
`experience in the research, design, development and/or testing of touch sensors,
`
`human-machine interaction and interfaces, and/or graphical user interfaces, and
`
`related firmware or software, or the equivalent, with additional education
`
`substituting for experience and vice-versa.
`
`B.
`
`State of the Art
`
`Prior to the earliest priority date claimed by the ’574 patent, touch screens
`
`with mutual-capacitance configurations in which sensing nodes, or sensors, formed
`
`by the intersections of one set of electrodes arranged in a first direction (e.g., a row
`
`direction) and driven by a drive circuit, with a second set of electrodes arranged in
`
`a second direction (e.g., a column direction) and connected to a sensing circuit,
`
`were well-known in the art as evidenced by Fig. 1 of EX1009 reproduced below:
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`EX1002 ¶29.
`
`Mutual-capacitance touch screens are configured to be capacitively coupled
`
`such that a pulsed or alternating voltage applied on a drive electrode induces a
`
`charge on a sense electrode that overlaps with the drive electrode. EX1002 ¶30.
`
`Each of the intersections of the drive and sense electrodes acts as a capacitor. Id.
`
`In this configuration, the touch screen senses the location of an object (e.g., a
`
`finger or conductive stylus) that is brought near the intersections because the object
`
`alters the local electric field (i.e., the mutual capacitance) between the drive and
`
`sense electrodes at the intersections. Id. Mutual capacitance touch screens can
`
`sense multiple touches simultaneously and provide two-dimensional images of the
`
`changes in the electric field. Id.
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`It was also well-known in the art to position drive and sense electrodes, on
`
`opposite sides of a transparent substrate. See, e.g., EX1008, ¶[0028] (in mutual
`
`capacitance systems, driving lines may be formed on a first layer and sensing lines
`
`may be formed on a second layer, and the “different layers may be different
`
`substrates, different sides of the same substrate, or the same side of the same
`
`substrate with dielectric separation.” (emphasis added)); EX1009, ¶[0009], Fig. 21;
`
`EX1002 ¶31.
`
`
`
`Mesh electrodes were also known well in advance of the priority date of the
`
`’574 patent. EX1002 ¶32. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 issued on
`
`October 24, 2000 discloses a touchpad with mesh electrodes 12-1 - 12-8 and 14-1 -
`
`14-8 formed by thin wires:
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EX1015, 5:16-31, Fig. 4. Similarly, U.S. Patent No. 7,129,935, issued on October
`
`31, 2006, discloses mesh electrodes formed from fine wires arranged in
`
`“brickwork” and “hex” patterns as shown in the figures below:
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1016, 9:15-10:5, Fig. 16. U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2010/0026664 and 2010/0123670
`
`similarly disclose mesh electrodes. EX1017, ¶¶[0064], [0067], Figs. 4, 4a;
`
`EX1009, ¶[0155], Fig. 17. Thus, as of the ’574 patent’s claimed priority date,
`
`mesh electrodes were nothing new. EX1002 ¶34.
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Challenged Claims are interpreted using the same claim construction
`
`standard that is used to construe the claim in a civil action in federal district court.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Indeed, the Parties have stipulated to the construction to
`
`certain claim terms discussed below. See EX1019. Any claim term not discussed
`
`below should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning as would be
`
`understood by a POSITA in view of the specification.
`
`A.
`
`“the substrate, with drive or sense electrodes of a touch sensor
`disposed on a first surface and a second surface of the substrate,
`the first surface being opposite the second surface, the drive or
`sense electrodes being made of a conductive mesh conductive
`material comprising metal” (claims 1, 8)
`
`This term should be construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning, which
`
`is “the substrate, having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first
`
`surface, with drive electrodes of a touch sensor disposed on one of the first or
`
`second surfaces and sense electrodes of the touch sensor disposed on the other
`
`surface opposite the drive electrodes, the drive or sense electrodes being made of a
`
`conductive mesh conductive material comprising metal.” EX1019; EX1002 ¶38.
`
`This construction is the same as what the Parties agreed on in the parallel district
`
`court case. Id.
`
`B.
`
`“conductive mesh [of] conductive material” (claims 1, 8, 15)
`
`This term should be construed to mean “conductive mesh of conductive
`
`material excluding transparent conductive materials such as indium tin oxide
`
`
`LEGAL02/40707218v1
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01115
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(ITO).” EX1019; EX1002 ¶38. This construction is the same as what the Parties
`
`agreed on in the parallel district court case. Id.
`
`X. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b