Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 1 of 36
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DELL INC.,
`
`
`
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HP INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-00514-ADA
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-00515-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-00537-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-00631-ADA
`
`
`SOLAS’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF1
`
`
`1 The captioned cases are consolidated for claim construction briefing and hearing. Thus, Solas
`will file an identical copy of its claim construction papers in those cases.
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 2 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS ..................................................................................... 2
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338 (“’338 Patent”) ........................................................................................................ 3
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 (“’068 Patent”) ........................................................................................................ 3
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,499,042 (“’042 Patent”) ........................................................................................................ 4
`D. U.S. Patent No. 7,663,615 (“’615 Patent”) ........................................................................................................ 5
`III.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 5
`IV.
`SUMMARY OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND PARTIES ............................................................ 7
`V. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’338 PATENT ......................................................................................... 7
`A.
`“transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claims 1, 4) ............................................................................... 7
`B.
`“project from a surface of the transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claim 1) ....................... 12
`VI.
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’068 PATENT ................................................................................... 13
`A.
`“supply lines” (’068 patent claims 1, 13) ...................................................................................................... 13
`B.
`“formed on said plurality of supply lines along said plurality of supply lines” (’068 patent
`claim 1) / “connected to said plurality of supply lines along said plurality of supply lines” (’068
`patent claim 13) ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
`C.
`“signal lines” (’068 patent claims 1, 13) ........................................................................................................ 15
`D.
`“source” / “drain” (’068 patent claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 17) .......................................................................... 16
`VII. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’042 PATENT ................................................................................... 17
`A.
`“selection period” (’042 patent claim 1) ....................................................................................................... 17
`B.
`“sequentially selects said plurality of selection scan lines in each selection period” (’042
`patent claim 1) .................................................................................................................................................................... 19
`C.
`“designating current” (’042 patent claim 1) ................................................................................................ 20
`D.
`“current lines” (’042 patent claim 1) .............................................................................................................. 22
`VIII. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’615 PATENT ................................................................................... 23
`A.
`“the operation” (’068 patent claim 11) .......................................................................................................... 23
`B.
`“precharge voltage” (’615 patent claim 11) ................................................................................................. 25
`C.
`“writing control section” (’615 patent claim 11) ....................................................................................... 26
`D.
`“data lines” (’615 patent claim 11) .................................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 3 of 36
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................................... 15
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 24
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 6
`
`Hastings v. United States,
`78 Fed. Cl. 729 (Fed. Cl. 2007) .............................................................................................. 22
`
`In re Downing,
`754 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 25
`
`In re Skvorecz,
`580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009 ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................... 22
`
`JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 6
`
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device All., Inc.,
`244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................... 16
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement v. TI,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 24
`
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 6
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................. 6
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 4 of 36
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 6
`
`US Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 5 of 36
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Ex 2 Document Description
`1 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck in support of Solas’s opening claim
`construction brief
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,072,450
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,447,338
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068
`5 U.S. Patent No. 7,499,042
`6 U.S. Patent No. 7,663,615
`7
`Parties’ joint revised list of terms/constructions served June 12, 2020
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000)
`8
`(“IEEE Dictionary”), definitions of “drain,” “source,” select,” and
`“substrate”
`9 Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd ed., 1997), definition of “signal”
`and ‘scan line”
`10 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (4th ed.,
`1989), definitions of “data transmission line,” “source,” drain,” and
`“selection circuit”
`11 Merriam-Webster Dictionary (avail. at www.merriam-webster.com,
`accessed May 2020), definitions of “select,” “selection,” “sequential,”
`and “series.”
`12 Dictionary.com (avail. at www.dictionary.com, accessed May 2020),
`definitions of “period,” “section,” “sequence,” and “sequential”
`13 Oxford Concise Dictionary (12th ed., 2011), definitions of “period”
`and “section”
`14 Claim Construction Memorandum and Order from Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., 2:19-CV-00152-JRG, Dkt. 99 (E.D. Tex.
`Apr. 17, 2020)
`Claim Construction Order from Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co.,
`LG Elec., Inc., and Sony Corp., Dkt. 82, Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA
`(W.D. Tex. June 9, 2020)
`16 Parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement from Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`LG Display Co., LG Elec., Inc., and Sony Corp., Dkt. 76, Case 6:19-
`cv-00236-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 1, 2020)
`
`15
`
`
`Abbreviation
`Flasck. Decl.
`
`’450 patent
`’338 patent
`’068 patent
`’042 patent
`’615 patent
`Joint Chart
`IEEE Dict.
`
`MS Dict.
`
`McGraw-Hill
`
`Merriam-
`Webster
`
`Dictionary.com
`
`Oxford Concise
`
`Samsung
`Markman
`
`LG/Sony
`Markman
`
`LG/Sony JCC
`
`
`2 All exhibits attached to the concurrently filed declaration of Philip X. Wang.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 6 of 36
`
`17 HP’s proposed claim constructions, Case No. 6:19-cv-00631-ADA,
`served May 22, 2020
`18 Solas’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`Against Samsung, Case No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG (E.D. Texas), Oct. 7,
`2019
`19 Apple’s proposed terms for construction, Case No. 6:19-cv-00537-
`ADA, served Apr. 30, 2020
`20 Apple’s proposed claim constructions, Case No. 6:19-cv-00537-ADA,
`served May 22, 2020
`
`21 Excerpts of transcript of April 14, 2020, Telephonic Motion Hearing
`from Solas v. Dell and Google, Case Nos. 6:19-cv-00514-ADA, 6:19-
`cv-00515-ADA.
`22 The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition (2005)
`
`
`HP’s Proposed
`Constructions
`Samsung
`Contentions
`
`Apple’s
`Proposed Terms
`Apple’s
`Proposed
`Constructions
`Motion Hearing
`Tr.
`
`New Oxford
`American
`Dictionary
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 7 of 36
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas”) and Defendants Dell Inc., Google LLC, Apple Inc.,
`
`and HP Inc., (collectively “Defendants”) offer not just competing proposals, but fundamentally
`
`different approaches to claim construction. The Federal Circuit has set forth straightforward rules
`
`to guide claim construction. For example, where claim terms have a plain and ordinary meaning
`
`in the field, that meaning almost always controls. And where described embodiments are narrower
`
`than the claims, features of embodiments should not be imported into the claims unless the patentee
`
`evinces a clear intent to limit claim scope. Solas’s proposals follow Federal Circuit precedent.
`
`They are also faithful to the full intrinsic record and reflect how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) would understand the terms.
`
`Defendants’ proposals, on the other hand, reflect a different and erroneous approach to
`
`claim construction. Defendants ask this Court to recharacterize and burden clear terms with
`
`artificial and extraneous baggage but cannot point to any clear and unmistakable disclaimer. This
`
`invites reversible error. Many of their proposals are inconsistent with—and even exclude—
`
`embodiments taught in the specification. For other terms, Defendants’ proposals are inconsistent
`
`with the claim language itself. And across the board, Defendants’ proposed constructions lengthen
`
`and obfuscate the terms, making it harder for the jury to understand them.
`
`The parties’ divergent approaches are also reflected in their treatment of prior claim
`
`constructions. Five disputed terms were previously construed by this Court (in the LG/Sony case)
`
`or by Judge Gilstrap (in the Sony case). For all these terms, Solas proposes the Court’s
`
`constructions. In contrast, Defendants seek a departure from all those constructions—often by
`
`advancing the same proposals and arguments that considered and rejected before.
`
`The Court should reject Defendants’ proposals and adopt Solas’s proposals.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 8 of 36
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`The asserted patents relate to display panels with light-emitting elements, such as organic
`
`electroluminescent display panels. A commonly used organic electroluminescent display
`
`technology is the organic light emitting diode, or OLED. OLED display panels are currently used
`
`in high-end mobile phones, watches, televisions, and other products from a number of
`
`manufacturers. Displays used in phones, watches, televisions, etc. contain a two-dimensional array
`
`of picture elements, commonly called pixels, that can each be controlled to produce a desired color
`
`and brightness of light. Together, these pixel form the desired image on the display. Each pixel is
`
`typically made up of a number of sub-pixels. By controlling the brightness of each sub-pixel, the
`
`brightness and color of an overall pixel can be controlled.
`
`Unlike liquid crystal display technology, which uses a backlight, in OLEDs, each
`
`individual sub-pixel of the display directly emits light. OLEDs are current-controlled, meaning
`
`that the light emitted from each sub-pixel depends on the current that flows through the
`
`electroluminescent element in that sub-pixel. The highest quality OLED displays are “active
`
`matrix,” as shown in the exemplary figure. Active
`
`Cathode
`
`matrix means that each sub-pixel in the display has a
`
`circuit associated with
`
`it, commonly containing
`
`electronic components such as
`
`transistors and
`
`capacitors, which is responsible for sending the correct
`
`amount of current through the OLED and thus
`
`controlling the brightness of the sub-pixel.
`
`Organic
`Layers
`
`Anode
`
`TFT
`Matrix
`
`The asserted patents generally relate to how drive circuits for active matrix OLEDs work.
`
`They address problems of concern to OLED displays and improve upon prior art approaches.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 9 of 36
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338 (“’338 Patent”)
`
`The ’338 patent concerns display panels with light-emitting elements, including OLEDs.
`
`It shows an example sub-pixel active matrix driving circuit for in Figure 2. In this example circuit,
`
`the light-emitting element shown as the diode 20. The transistor 23 in this example is called the
`
`“driving transistor.” During the time that the sub-pixel is emitting light, a “driving current” passes
`
`through the driving transistor and is supplied
`
`to the diode. ’338 patent at 14:51–53.
`
`Periodically, the sub-pixel is selected to be
`
`written to by setting a voltage on the
`
`corresponding “scan line” Xi. Id. at 14:42–
`
`46. This voltage on the scan line turns the
`
`“switch transistor” 21 on. Id. 16:30–32.
`
`Turning the switch transistor on permits a
`
`“write current” supplied by the “signal line”
`
`Write Current
`(Brightness Signal)
`
`Scan line
`
`Supply
`line
`Signal
`line
`
`Holding
`Transistor
`
`Capacitor
`
`Driving Transistor
`
`Switch Transistor
`
`Organic LED
`
`Common
`Interconnection
`
`Yi to pass through the circuit, particularly through the driving transistor. Id.at 14:59–63.
`
`This flow of current causes a corresponding charge to form between the electrodes of the
`
`capacitor 24, and when the switch transistor is turned off, a current then flows through diode that
`
`depends on the charge on the capacitor, and in this example equals the write current. ’338 patent
`
`at 15:54–16:13. The patent specification describes a structure that implements a circuit of this type
`
`as a series of thin-film layers in the display panel, and the patent claims aspects of this structure.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 (“’068 Patent”)
`
`The ’068 patent concerns improved designs for transistor array substrates, containing an
`
`array of “driving transistors” and associated lines and interconnections necessary to their
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 10 of 36
`
`operation. Such arrays of driving transistors are needed, for example, to drive active matrix
`
`displays utilizing organic electroluminescent elements. ’068 patent at 1:24–36.
`
`In prior art arrays, the materials, dimension, and arrangement of the transistor components
`
`and the lines and interconnections meant that the arrays suffered from undesirably large resistances
`
`and voltage drops, impairing the operation of driving transistors and the quality of the displayed
`
`image. The ’068 patent teaches and claims improved designs for transistor arrays, with different
`
`arrangements of transistors, lines, interconnections, and electrodes, as well as with different
`
`dimensions or materials for such structures than those used in the prior art. ’068 patent, Fig. 5.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,499,042 (“’042 Patent”)
`
`The ‘042 patent addresses problems with active matrix OLED displays. See ’042 patent at
`
`Background of the Invention. Specifically, the ’042 patent recognizes that the transistors of such
`
`can vary or degrade over time, leading to inconsistent pixel brightness See id. at 2:7–28 (“the gate
`
`threshold voltage changes with time, or differs from one transistor to another . . . That is, even
`
`when the gate voltage having the same level is applied to the driving TFTs of a plurality of pixels,
`
`the luminance of the organic EL element changes from one pixel to another. This produces
`
`variations in luminance on the display screen.”).
`
`The ’042 patent addresses this problem by describing a display device with a plurality of
`
`selection scan lines, a plurality of current lines, and a data driving circuit. The driving circuit
`
`applies a reset voltage to the plurality of current lines and then supplies a designating current
`
`having a current value corresponding to an image signal. The pixel circuits then supply a driving
`
`current with a current value corresponding to the designating current which flows through the
`
`current lines. Importantly, the pixel circuits loads the designating current which flows through the
`
`current lines and stores a level of voltage converted in accordance with the current value of the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 11 of 36
`
`designating current. After the selection period is over, the pixel circuits shut off the designating
`
`current and supplies a driving current corresponding to the level of the voltage converted in
`
`accordance with the designating current.
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,663,615 (“’615 Patent”)
`
`The ’615 patent concerns driving circuitry for self-luminous displays that emit light due to
`
`the current flowing through pixel elements, such as displays utilizing organic electroluminescent
`
`or LED elements.’615 Background of the Invention. The current flowing through such devices is
`
`commonly controlled by a gate voltage on a drive transistor. But the relationship between the gate
`
`voltage and the current may change “depending on the usage time, the drive history and the like,”
`
`and in particular the minimum “threshold voltage” on the gate necessary to permit current flow
`
`may shift. Thus, “it becomes difficult to stably realize the light emission operation at the
`
`appropriate luminance gradation sequence in accordance with the display data for a long time.”
`
`The ’615 patent provides structures and methods for driving the pixel circuits that solve
`
`problems in the prior art, including through a light emission drive circuit that can apply a current
`
`control type (or a current drive type) of light emission element emitting light at a predetermined
`
`luminance gradation sequence by supplying a current in accordance with the display data to plural
`
`display panels (pixel arrays). Abstract. Various embodiments are shown in the figures, including
`
`Fig. 15, which is “an example of the entire structure of a display unit.”
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`The “claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`
`the claim.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Indeed,
`
`“the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of [] terms.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 12 of 36
`
`Thus, when conducting a claim construction inquiry, “district courts are not (and should
`
`not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l
`
`v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is because claim
`
`construction is “not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” US Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103
`
`F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a term is used in accordance with its plain meaning, the
`
`court should not replace it with different language. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669
`
`F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`To the contrary, there is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, unless [the accused infringer] can show the patentee expressly
`
`relinquished claim scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because
`
`that plain meaning “is the meaning that the term would have to a [POSITA] in question at the time
`
`of the invention,” construing claims often “involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14.
`
`“There are only two exceptions” in which claim terms are not given their full ordinary and
`
`customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,
`
`or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or
`
`lexicography, courts “do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments
`
`appearing only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification describes very specific
`
`embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment.” JVW Enters. v.
`
`Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Similarly, a statement in patent
`
`does not limit the claims unless the statement is a “clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim
`
`scope.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 13 of 36
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND PARTIES
`
`Five patents are asserted in the cases involving Google, Dell, Apple, and HP with overlapping
`
`patents and different patents against each Defendant. The ’450 patent is asserted against Dell,
`
`google, and Apple, and does not have any disputed terms for construction. The ’338 patent is
`
`asserted against Google and Apple, and was also construed by Judge Gilstrap in the Samsung
`
`EDTex case. The ’068 patent is asserted against Apple and HP and was also construed by this
`
`Court in the LG/Sony case. Finally, the ’042 and ’615 patents are asserted against HP only and
`
`have not been previously construed. This is summarized in the following chart:
`
`Cases
`
`’450
`
`’338
`
`’068
`
`’042
`
`’615
`
`Solas v. Dell
`(6:19-cv-00514)
`
`Solas v. Google
`(6:19-cv-00515)
`
`Solas v. Apple
`(6:19-cv-00537)
`
`Solas v. HP
`(6:19-cv-00631)
`
`!
`
`!
`
`!
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`! !
`
`!
`
`
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’338 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claims 1, 4)
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction
`layered structure upon which or within
`which a transistor array is fabricated
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a layered structure composed of a bottom
`insulating layer through a topmost layer on
`whose upper surface pixel electrodes are
`formed, which contains an array of transistors
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 14 of 36
`
`This term was construed two months ago by Judge Gilstrap in Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung
`
`Display Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Samsung Markman (Ex. 15) at 8–15.
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., an intervenor in the present cases, is a defendant in that Eastern District
`
`of Texas case. Samsung Display is also the supplier of the OLED panels used in the Apple and
`
`Google products accused under the ’338 patent in the present cases. Indeed, Solas’s initial
`
`infringement contentions in the Solas v. Samsung case accused the OLED panels that Samsung
`
`sells to Apple and Google for use in the products at issue in the present cases. Ex. 18 at 3–4.
`
`For both this term and the term “project from a surface of the transistor array substrate,”
`
`Solas proposes that this Court adopt the same constructions that Judge Gilstrap held were the
`
`correct constructions. Samsung Claim Construction Order, Ex. 15 at 15, 18. Intervenor Samsung
`
`Display and its customers Apple and Google propose that this Court instead adopt the exact
`
`constructions that Samsung Display unsuccessfully proposed in the Eastern District case and that
`
`Judge Gilstrap rejected. Ex. 15 at 8, 15, 18. Samsung Display and its customers do not offer a new
`
`construction or new extrinsic evidence. They are not seeking to address some question of the
`
`meaning of the claims that is relevant to the products at issue in these cases but was not relevant
`
`to the products in the Eastern District case. Instead, they seek a “do-over,” asking this Court to
`
`reach a different decision on exactly the same issue that its sister court decided two months ago.
`
`The Court should adopt Judge Gilstrap’s constructions, based upon the persuasive
`
`reasoning that is set forth in his opinion. Ex. 15 at 8–18. Indeed, this Court said it would “give a
`
`very high deference review of anything that Judge Gilstrap construes” and that changing a
`
`construction would face a “tough burden.” Motions Hearing Tr. at 28. Here, based on Defendants’
`
`statements during the meet and confer process and its reliance on the same extrinsic evidence, they
`
`do not and cannot meet that burden. And of course, the Court should adopt Judge Gilstrap’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 15 of 36
`
`constructions to avoid the same terms of the same patent being applied in two different ways to
`
`devices made by the same supplier, Samsung Display, in cases where that same supplier is a party.
`
`Even putting that aside, Solas’s proposed construction is correct. The plain meaning of a
`
`“transistor array substrate” is the substrate of or for a “transistor array.” The Authoritative
`
`Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition (2000) provides a definition of “substrate”
`
`in the context of integrated circuits: “(1) (integrated circuit) The supporting material upon or within
`
`which an integrated circuit is fabricated or to which an integrated circuit is attached.” Ex. 8, at
`
`1123. Defendants’ cited dictionary definition is consistent, stating that a substrate for an integrated
`
`circuit may have material placed on it (i.e., “deposited”) or within it (i.e., “inscribed”). Ex. 22, The
`
`New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, at 1688, DEFS_CC_0039. Ex. 1, Flasck Decl.
`
`¶¶ 59, 72–73. The ’338 patent uses word “substrate” consistently with these definitions, when it
`
`describes the bottom layer “2” in Figure 6 as an “insulating substrate” ’338 patent at 10:43:
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposal departs from the plain meaning and incorporates specific features
`
`from one of the preferred embodiments disclosed in the specification. Specifically, it requires that
`
`the bottom layer of the transistor array substrate be “insulating,” something that is not required by
`
`the plain meaning of the term. In particular, Defendants’ dictionary definition states that a substrate
`
`could be a silicon wafer, i.e. a semiconductor. Ex. 22, at 1688, DEFS_CC_0039.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 16 of 36
`
`Defendants’ may be relying on the statement in the specification that “[t]he layered
`
`structure from the insulating substrate 2 to the planarization film 33 is called a transistor array
`
`substrate 50.” ’338 patent at 10:45–47. This is simply a statement that the layered structure
`
`from 2 to 33 in Figure 6 is an example of a transistor array substrate. It is no more a definition of
`
`the term “transistor array substrate” than the statement “the document you are reading is a called
`
`an opening claim construction brief” defines or limits “opening claim construction brief.” The
`
`statement also clearly does not disclaim other types of “transistor array substrates” other than the
`
`type shown in Figure 6. Indeed, the specification is clear that it only describes a “best mode,” and
`
`that “the spirit and scope of the present invention are not limited to the following embodiments
`
`and illustrated examples.” Id. at 4:42–48.
`
`Defendants appear to agree that this statement from column 10 is not lexicography, because
`
`they do not propose construing “transistor array substrate” as the layers up to a “planarization
`
`film.” Instead, they propose defining “transistor array substrate” in terms of something never
`
`mentioned in column 10, lines 42–47, namely in terms of what is formed on the “upper surface”
`
`of its “topmost layer.” There is no support in the specification, or elsewhere in the intrinsic or
`
`extrinsic record for defining the transistor array substrate by something else—having nothing
`
`directly to do with the transistor array—that is formed on top of it.
`
`The specification, in describing the Figure 6 preferred embodiment, does describe
`
`electrodes as being “arrayed . . . on the upper surface of the planarization film 33, i.e. the upper
`
`surface of the transistor array substrate 50.” ’338 patent at 11:50–52. Defendants may be relying
`
`on this language in support of their proposal. But the electrodes are not the only thing that the
`
`specification describes as being “on” the transistors array substrate. Indeed, the specification uses
`
`very similar language to describe the “insulating line 61,” saying that it is “formed on the surface
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 48 Filed 06/25/20 Page 17 of 36
`
`of the planarization film 33, i.e., on the surface of the transistor array substrate 50 between the
`
`[sub-pixels].” (Ex. 3, ’338 patent at 10:48–51.) If the sentence at 11:50–52 defines the transistor
`
`array substrate as the thing the electrodes are formed on, then sentence 10:48–51 defines them as
`
`the thing something else is formed on. Correctly understood, the specification is not providing
`
`multiple inconsistent definitions of transistor array substrate. Rather, it describes different
`
`structures of a preferred embodiment, which happen to be formed on the transistor array substrate.
`
`Notably, both the sentence at 10:45–47 and the sentence at 11:50–52 form part of the
`
`description of a “bottom emission type” embodiment. ’338 patent at 10:42–47. The immediately
`
`following paragraphs of the specification describe a “top emission type” embodiment. Id. at 11:66–
`
`12:5. In this “top emission” embodiment, an additional “reflecting film having high conductivity
`
`and high visible light reflectance” is preferably formed between the sub-pixel electrode 20a and
`
`the planarization film 33. Id.; Ex. 1, Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 67–69. To the extent that Defendants argue
`
`that the sentences at 10:45–47 and 11:50–52 are definitional or constitute lexicography, then the
`
`sub-pixel electrodes 20a in this “top emission type” embodiment are not formed directly on the
`
`upper surface of layer 33, and their proposed construction (requiring that the electrodes be formed
`
`on the “upper surface” of the “topmost layer”) improperly excludes this “top em