Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Date: May 21, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`____________
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Date: May 21, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`____________
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`(collectively, “LG”), filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review
`(“IPR”) of claims 1–6, 11–16, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,510,040 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’040 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Multimedia
`Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Multimedia”), filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on the authority delegated to us by the
`Director under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023), we may not institute an IPR
`unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto
`shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) (2023). Taking into account Multimedia’s Preliminary Response,
`we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that LG would prevail in demonstrating at
`least one of claims 1–6, 11–16, 21, and 22 of the ’040 patent as
`unpatentable. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review
`as to these claims of the ’040 patent.
`A. Real Parties in Interest (“RPIs”)
`The Petition identifies LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics
`U.S.A., Inc. as RPIs. Pet. 95. Multimedia identifies itself as the only RPI.
`Paper 4 (Multimedia’s Mandatory Notices), 2.
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’040 patent is the subject of the following
`
`two district court cases: (1) Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. LG
`Electronics Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00494 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 23, 2022); and
`(2) Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00124
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`(E.D. Tex. Filed Mar. 24, 2023). Pet. 95; Paper 4, 2. In addition to this
`Petition, LG filed the following three other petitions challenging related
`patents owned by Multimedia: (1) LG Electronics, Inc. v. Multimedia
`Technologies Pte. Ltd., IPR2024-00352, Paper 1 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2023)
`(challenging claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 B2); (2) LG
`Electronics, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd., IPR2024-00353,
`Paper 1 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2023) (challenging claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 12–17, and
`19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,254 B2); and (3) LG Electronics, Inc. v.
`Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd., IPR2024-00354, Paper 1 (PTAB
`Dec. 22, 2023) (challenging claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,419,805
`B2)). Paper 4, 2.
`
`C. The ’040 Patent
`The ’040 patent, titled “Global Panel,” issued from U.S. Patent
`Application No. 14/834,316, filed on August 24, 2015. Ex. 1001, codes
`(54), (21), (22). The ’040 patent has an extensive priority chain of
`continuation and provisional applications that ultimately results in a claim of
`priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/684,672 (“the ’672
`application”), which was filed on August 17, 2012. Id. at codes (60), (63).
`The ’040 patent generally relates to “methods and systems of
`displaying content on a television” that includes “receiving an indication
`associated with a selection by a user,” determining “a global panel to display
`via the television” based on the received indication,” retrieving “a first
`content information for display in the global panel” from memory, and then
`displaying “the retrieved content information in the specified global panel”
`on the television. Ex. 1001, code (57). According to the ’040 patent,
`“[a] Smart TV [television] is generally conceived as a device that integrates
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`access to the Internet and Web 2.0 features into television sets.” Id. at 2:15–
`17. The ’040 patent, however, states that “most Smart TV’s have yet to
`provide seamless and intuitive user interfaces for navigating and/or
`executing the various features of the Smart TV” and, as a result, “there are
`still issues with the consolidation of features and the presentation of these
`features in Smart TVs.” Id. at 2:21–26.
`The ’040 patent ostensibly addresses these issues with smart TVs by
`providing “intuitive user interfaces . . . with seamless user interaction
`capability.” Ex. 1001, 2:30–31. Figure 15B of the ’040 patent, reproduced
`below, illustrates a global panel configuration consistent with one
`embodiment. Id. at 11:31–32, 29:60–62.
`
`
`Figure 15B illustrates intelligent TV 100 that includes global panel 1404 on
`the left and active content area 1408 on the right. See id. at 29:60–30:5.
`Global panel 1404 includes, among other things, one or more sources
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`1504A–E represented by icons or texts. Id. at 30:26–27. Global panel 1404
`also “indicate[s] a source that is selected or highlight[ed] using indicator
`1512.” Id. at 30:41–43. As shown above, indicator 1512 is represented as
`“a box positioned around Live TV––801 CNXN,” which, in turn, results in
`displaying Live TV in active content area 1408. Id. at 30:43–44, 30:65–67.
`
`Figure 15C of the ’040 patent, reproduced below, illustrates that same
`global panel configuration as Figure 15B, except indicator 1512 was moved
`to a different source. Ex. 1001, 11:31–32, 32:9–12.
`
`
`Figure 15C illustrates positioning indicator 1512 within global panel 1404
`around “On Demand – Skyfalls,” which, in turn, results in displaying an
`image or video associated with Skyfalls in active content area 1408. Id. at
`32:12–14.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 11 and 21 are independent.
`Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] method of displaying content on a
`television,” independent claim 11 is directed to “[a] non-transitory computer
`readable information storage medium having stored thereon instructions that
`cause a computing system to execute a method of displaying content on a
`television,” and independent claim 21 is directed to “[a] system for
`displaying content on a television.” Ex. 1001, 39:58–59, 41:1–4, 42:29–30.
`Claims 2–6 directly depend from independent claim 1, claims 12–16 directly
`depend from independent claim 11, and claim 22 directly depends from
`independent claim 21. Id. at 40:8–49, 41:20–42:5, 42:49–61. Independent
`claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below.
`1.
`A method of displaying content on a television,
`comprising:
`receiving, by a processor, an indication associated with a
`selection by a user;
`determining, by the processor, based on the received
`indication, a global panel to display via the television;
`retrieving, by the processor, from memory, a first content
`information for display in the global panel; and
`displaying, via the television, the retrieved content
`information in the global panel, wherein the global panel
`includes a list of sources of content for the intelligent television,
`wherein at least one of the sources is highlighted as being
`associated with the first content information, and wherein the
`sources include a live television source, a video on demand
`source, a media center source, an applications source, and an
`electrical input associated with the television.
`Id. at 39:58–40:7.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Prior Art References
`LG relies on the prior art references set forth in the table below.
`Name1
`Reference
`Dates
`Exhibit
`Nos.
`1005
`
`Kim
`
`US 2012/0054791 A1 published Mar. 1, 2012;
`filed Mar. 9, 2011
`issued Apr. 14, 2015;
`filed Jan. 4, 2010
`US 2013/0057764 A1 published Mar. 7, 2013;
`filed June 28, 2012
`issued July 19, 2016;
`filed Dec. 16, 2010
`
`US 9,008,190 B2
`
`US 9,398,339 B2
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1010
`
`Lee
`(“Lee-1”)
`Choi
`
`Lee
`(“Lee-2”)
`
`
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`LG challenges claims 1–6, 11–16, 21, and 22 of the ’040 patent based
`on the asserted grounds of unpatentability set forth in the table below.
`Pet. 10–92.
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–5, 11–15, 21
`2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 16, 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`103(a)2
`Kim, Lee-1, Choi
`103(a)
`Kim, Lee-1, Choi, Lee-2
`
`
`1 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Because the ’040 patent claims the benefit of the ’672 application,
`which was filed before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`Ex. 1001, code (60).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Discretionary Denial Arguments Under § 314(a)
`1. Parties Arguments
`LG contends that we should not exercise our discretion to deny the
`Petition under § 314(a), primarily because LG stipulates “that if instituted,
`[LG] will not pursue in District Court the specific grounds asserted here, or
`on any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in
`this IPR.” Pet. 93 (citing Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation at 3,
`available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_
`proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20
`220621_.pdf. (“Director Memo”)). In its Preliminary Response, Multimedia
`contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under
`§ 314(a) because, among other reasons, LG failed to file a stipulation
`consistent with the holding set forth in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo
`Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to
`§ II.A) (“Sotera”). Prelim. Resp. 2–20. After Multimedia filed its
`Preliminary Response, we granted LG authorization to file a “Notice of
`Sotera Stipulation,” asserting that a stipulation according to Sotera was
`entered in the district court case where LG is a party. Ex. 1014.
`2. Fintiv Analysis
`It is well-settled that institution of an IPR is discretionary. Harmonic
`Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he [U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office] is permitted, but never compelled, to institute
`an IPR proceeding.”); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (“The Director may not authorize
`an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” (emphasis added)). In Fintiv, the Board
`discussed potential applications of NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential), as well as a
`number of other cases dealing with discretionary denial under § 314(a).
`Fintiv identifies a non-exclusive list of six factors parties may consider
`addressing, particularly where there is a related district court case involving
`the same patent and whether such a case provides any basis for discretionary
`denial. Fintiv at 5–16. Those factors include the following:
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`
`Id. at 5–6.
`On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of
`a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`factors. See Director Memo. Notably, the Director stated that “the PTAB
`[Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution in
`view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a
`stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any
`ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Director
`Memo at 3. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our
`discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because LG
`filed a Sotera stipulation in both this proceeding and the district court case
`where LG is a party. Pet. 93; Ex. 1014.
`In its Preliminary Response, Multimedia contends that LG fails to
`provide a proper Sotera stipulation for the following two reasons: (1) LG
`did not file its stipulation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`Texas, which is handling the two parallel district court cases; and (2) LG’s
`stipulation would have little, if any, impact on the district court case where
`Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) is a party. Prelim. Resp. 11–17. We do not agree with
`Multimedia’s arguments.
`As an initial matter, we do not share Multimedia’s view that a Sotera
`stipulation must be filed in the two parallel district court cases. See Prelim.
`Resp. 13–16. This same argument was raised previously in another
`proceeding before the Board. See Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. Ltd. v.
`Alidouble, Inc., IPR2023-00369, Paper 7 at 10 (PTAB July 12, 2023)
`(Institution Decision) (declining to discount petitioner’s stipulation because
`petitioner did not file it in the district court). In Taiwan Semiconductor,
`patent owner urged the Board to exercise discretion to deny institution under
`§ 314(a) in light of a parallel district court litigation because, in part,
`petitioner had not filed the stipulation in the district court. Id. at 9. The
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`Board disagreed and found that the Director Memo does not require that
`such a stipulation be filed in the district court, only that the petitioner
`“stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation.” Id. (citing Director Memo at 3, 7).
`We agree with the Board’s reasoning in Taiwan Semiconductor case.
`That is, the Director Memo only requires that LG “stipulate[]” or “present[]
`a stipulation,” and it does not lay out a requirement for a petitioner to file the
`stipulation in the district court case where it is a party. Director Memo at 3,
`7.
`
`In any event, even if we were to agree with Multimedia’s argument,
`LG filed a Notice of Sotera Stipulation in the district court case where LG is
`a party. Ex. 1014. This Notice states the following:
`[LG] hereby stipulates, consistent with the stipulation made by
`the [p]etitioner in Sotera that, if the PTAB institutes an IPR in
`response to [LG’s] petition against [Multimedia’s] U.S. Patent
`No. 9,510,040 (IPR2024-00351), [LG] will not pursue in this
`litigation the grounds raised or any other grounds that could have
`reasonably been raised before the PTAB in that instituted
`proceeding.
`Id. at 2. Consequently, the purpose of LG’s Sotera stipulation has been
`achieved here because it “mitigates any concerns of duplicative efforts
`between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially
`conflicting decisions.” Sotera, Paper 12 at 19 (citing Sand Revolution II,
`LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24
`at 12 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (Decision Granting Request for Rehearing)
`(informative)).
`Although Multimedia is correct that LG’s Sotera stipulation would
`have little, if any, impact on the district court case where Vizio is a party
`(see Prelim. Resp. 16–17), the Director’s interim guidance does not
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`condition or otherwise qualify the effect of a Sotera stipulation on our
`exercise of discretion to deny the Petition based on any remaining
`defendants in the parallel district court cases that are not subject to the
`stipulation (see Director Memo at 7, 9). Put simply, LG has filed a Sotera
`stipulation in this proceeding and, as a result, we will not exercise our
`discretion to deny the Petition.
`B. Claim Construction
`In this IPR, claim terms are construed using the same claim
`construction standard as in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2023). That is, claim terms generally are construed
`in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have
`been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the
`specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent at issue.
`See id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning
`to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the
`effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303, 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`In its Petition, LG contends that, “for purposes of this proceeding and
`the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.”
`Pet. 9. Despite this contention, LG proposes that we construe the claim term
`“at least one,” as recited in each of claims 1, 6, 11, 21, and 22. Id.
`According to LG, “the phrasing of ‘at least one of A, B, C’ and ‘at least one
`of A, B, or C’ includes ‘A alone, B alone, C alone, A and B together, B and
`C together, or A, B, and C together.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:49–56;
`Ex. 1003 (Declaration of Andrew Lippman, Ph.D.) ¶¶ 34–39). In its
`Preliminary Response, “[Multimedia] does not dispute [LG’s] statement[s]
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`on claim construction for purposes of [its] Preliminary Response.” Prelim.
`Resp. 30 (citing Pet. 9).
`Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible
`controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms
`at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe
`terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`C. Obviousness Over the Combined Teachings of Kim, Lee-1, and Choi
`LG contends that claims 1–5, 11–15, and 21 of the ’040 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined
`teachings of Kim, Lee-1, and Choi. Pet. 10–76. LG contends that the
`combined teachings of Kim, Lee-1, and Choi account for the subject matter
`of each challenged claim, and provides reasoning as to why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify the teachings
`of these references. Id. LG also relies on the testimony of Dr. Lippman to
`support its positions. See Ex. 1003.
`Based on the preliminary record, we determine that LG has shown
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging at
`least one of claims 1–5, 11–15, and 21 of the ’040 patent as unpatentable.
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply to an
`asserted ground based on obviousness, followed by an assessment of the
`level of skill in the art, next we provide overviews of Kim, Lee-1, and Choi,
`and then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to the independent
`claims 1, 11, and 21.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of obviousness or non-
`obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations, such as commercial success,
`long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.).3 Graham v. John Deere
`Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted
`grounds based on obviousness with the principles we identify above in mind.
`2. Level of Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of
`maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.
`Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The “person having
`ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from whose vantage
`
`
`3 At this stage in the proceeding, Multimedia does not present arguments or
`evidence of secondary considerations. See Prelim. Resp.
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`point obviousness is assessed. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`1998).
`Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`(6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
`Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic
`Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or
`more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at
`696–97.
`For purposes of institution, there is sufficient evidence in the record
`that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill
`in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Lippman, LG argues the
`following:
`[a] Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art . . . in August of 2012
`would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the
`interactive media guide arts that are pertinent to the ’040 patent.
`A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a
`bachelor’s degree
`in Electrical Engineering, Software
`Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training,
`and approximately two years of experience working in the field
`of
`television systems and networking, human-computer
`interaction, or related technologies. Lack of professional
`experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice
`versa.
`
`Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). For the limited purposes of its
`Preliminary Response, “[Multimedia] does not dispute [LG’s] definition of a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Pet. 8–9).
`To the extent necessary, we adopt LG’s assessment of the level of skill in the
`art because it is consistent with the ’040 patent and the asserted prior art.
`3. Overview of Kim
`Kim generally relates to “[a] multifunctional display device” that
`displays multiple card objects in different portions of the display. Ex. 1005,
`code (57). Kim discloses image display apparatus 100 (e.g. a smart TV) that
`includes, among other things, display 180. Id. ¶¶ 38, 65, Figs. 2, 6. Figure
`19 of Kim, reproduced below, illustrates an exemplary home screen display
`according to one embodiment. Id. ¶¶ 21, 192.
`
`Figure 19 illustrates display 180 that includes home screen 1300 displaying
`three card objects: (1) card object 1310 named BROADCAST, (2) card
`object 1320 named NETCAST, and (3) card object 1330 named APP
`STORE. Id. ¶¶ 192, 193, 195. Hidden area 1301 includes additional card
`objects 1340, 1350, 1360, 1370, 1380, and 1390, which a user may shift or
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`scroll to on display 180 to replace card objects 1310, 1320, or 1330. Id.
`¶ 196. The number of card objects included in display 180 may vary “from
`three to either four or two card objects.” Id. ¶ 198. As one example, “upon
`receipt of an incoming call,” if display 180 already includes card object
`1390, “it may be highlighted or otherwise distinguished from the other card
`objects.” Id. ¶ 211.
`
`4. Overview of Lee-1
`Lee-1 generally relates to “an apparatus for processing images and an
`operating method thereof.” Ex. 1006, 1:15–19. Lee-1 discloses an
`apparatus for displaying images 100 that includes, among other things,
`display 180. Id. at 1:66–2:6, Fig. 1. Display 180 is capable of displaying
`thumbnail image screen 500. Id. at 12:38–43, Fig. 10. Thumbnail image
`screen 500 displays thumbnail images that may include “a currently inputted
`image, or a previously stored image.” Id. at 12:65–67.
`5. Overview of Choi
`Choi generally relates to “an image display device” and, in particular,
`“to a method for providing a list of external devices.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 2. Figure
`11 of Choi, reproduced below, illustrates “a screen that provides an external
`device list” according to one embodiment. Id. ¶¶ 19, 250.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 11 illustrates display unit 180 that includes full screen 810 displaying
`a plurality of external device icons 820. Id. ¶ 250. The external devices
`actually connected to the image display device are identified using specific
`symbols 830a, 830b, and 830c. Id.
`6. Claims 1, 11, and 21
`For purposes of consistency and added clarity, we address each
`limitation of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 in turn by relying on the
`bracketed annotations provided by LG in the Petition. See Pet. 15–56, 72–
`73, 75–76, 97–103 (Claims Appendix). The preamble of independent claim
`1 recites [1.0]—“[a] method of displaying content on a television,
`comprising[].” Ex. 1001, 39:58–59. To the extent the preamble should be
`treated as limiting, LG contends that Kim teaches the features recited therein
`because it discloses smart TV 100 displaying exemplary content, including,
`among other things, BROADCAST image 1315, NETCAST content 1320
`and APP STORE content 1330. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 193–202,
`282–289, Figs. 9, 19–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`
`The first step of independent claim 1 recites limitation [1.1]—
`“receiving, by a processor, an indication associated with a selection by a
`user.” Ex. 1001, 39:60–61. LG contends that Kim teaches this limitation
`because it discloses controller 170, which includes a video processor, audio
`processor, data processor, and application processor, that executes software
`to operate smart TV 100 by receiving a user selection from input interface
`150 via remote controller 200. Pet. 17–23 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 85–87, 90, 94,
`109, 110, 112, 113, 133, 145, 166–175, 187, 192, Figs. 6, 11, 12; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 66–79; Ex. 1001, 17:5–9).
`The second method step of independent claim 1 recites limitation
`[1.2]—“determining, by the processor, based on the received indication, a
`global panel to display via the television.” Ex. 1001, 39:62–63. LG
`contends that Kim teaches this limitation because it discloses, “upon receipt
`of a go-to-home screen input,” controller 170 displays the home screen on
`display 180 that includes “a plurality of card objects classified according to
`content sources.” Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 94 (emphasis omitted)) (citing
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 192; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81), 24–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89, 94, 96, 193,
`196, Figs. 6, 19–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–86; Ex. 1001, 29:58–59, 32:60–65).
`LG argues that Kim’s home screen may include card objects representing “a
`thumbnail list of broadcast channels,” “a broadcast program guide,” “a
`program reservation list or a program recording list,” “a media list of a
`device connected to [smart TV] 100,” “a list of connected external devices,”
`“an application menu,” etc. Id. at 23–24 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 94) (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81, 82).
`The third method step of independent claim 1 recites limitation
`[1.3]—“retrieving, by the processor, from memory, a first content
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`information for display in the global panel.” Ex. 1001, 39:64–65. Relying
`on its argument and evidence for limitations [1.1] and [1.2], LG contends
`that Kim in combination with Lee-1 teaches this limitation because Kim’s
`controller 170 determines the home screen to display on smart TV 100,
`including whether the home screen displays descriptive text (e.g.,
`application names, video genre, video title, and audio/visual indicator) and
`thumbnails. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87, 88). More specifically, LG
`argues that Kim’s card objects 1330, 1360, and 1370 include descriptive text
`informing the user of available content. Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 137, 208, Fig. 21). As one example, LG argues that Kim’s card object
`1330 includes “Angry Birds” and “Bejeweled 2,” both of which are
`descriptive text because they correspond to a “title” or “name” of an
`application available to the user. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 21;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–91; Ex. 1001, 25:41–49, 27:23–30, Fig. 15C). LG also
`argues that Kim’s card objects 1330, 1360, and 1370 include thumbnails
`informing the user of available content. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 137, 184–186, 208, 209, Figs. 19–21). As one example, Kim’s card
`object 1330 displays a thumbnail image informing the user that the
`application “Angry Birds” is available. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84, 208;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97; Ex. 1001, Fig. 15C).
`LG further contends that Kim’s smart TV 100 “reproduce[s] content
`stored in memory 140” and that “controller 170 may control display of the
`home screen on the display 180.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 85, then
`quoting id. ¶ 94 (emphasis omitted)) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84–86, 92–94;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 102); see also id. at 32–33 (arguing the same) (quoting Ex. 1005
`¶ 92) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 94, 117, 206; Ex. 1003 ¶ 105). Based on these and
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00351
`Patent 9,510,040 B2
`
`other cited disclosures in Kim, LG asserts that it would have been obvious to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art for Kim’s controller 170 to retrieve
`content stored in memory 140, such as descriptive text and thumbnails, so it
`may reproduce the retrieved content on the home screen of display 180. Id.
`at 31–34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 84, 85, 89, 92, 117, 192, 213, 293, claim 1,
`Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103, 104, 106, 107).
`In addition, LG contends that Kim incorporates by reference Lee-1.
`Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). LG argues that Lee-1 discloses that the
`“displayed thumbnail images may be a . . . previously stored image.” Id. at
`34–35 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12:65–67 (emphasis omitted)). Based on this
`cited disclosure in Lee-1, LG asserts that it would have been obvious to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art for Kim’s smart TV 100 to store Lee-1’s
`thumbnails in memory 140 and display those images to the user. Id. at 35
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 192, 239; Ex. 1006, 12:65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶ 108).
`Turning to rationale to combine, LG contends that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have “considered and applied Lee-1’s incorporated by
`reference thumbnail teachings to successfully implement Kim’s system and
`method thereof, which [also] uses thumbnails.” Id. at 12–13 (citing
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). Stated differently, LG asserts that it would have been
`obvious to combine the teachings of Kim and Lee-1 because “[Lee-1]
`provide[s] implementation details directly applicable to successfully
`implementing Kim’s system and method.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53, 54).
`The fourth method step of independent claim 1 recites limitation
`[1.4]—“displaying, via the television, the retrie
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
