Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 38
`
`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 RESPONSIVE 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 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 38
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’338 PATENT ......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`“transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claims 1, 4) ............................................................................... 1
`B.
`“project from a surface of the transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claim 1) .......................... 3
`II. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’068 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`A.
`“signal lines” / “supply lines” (’068 patent claims 1, 13) .......................................................................... 4
`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) .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
`C.
`“source” / “drain” (’068 patent claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 17) .......................................................... 10
`III.
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’042 PATENT ................................................................................... 12
`A.
`“selection period” (’042 patent claim 1) ....................................................................................................... 13
`B.
`“sequentially selects said plurality of selection scan lines in each selection period” (’042
`patent claim 1) .................................................................................................................................................................... 16
`C.
`“designating current” (’042 patent claim 1) ................................................................................................ 18
`D.
`“current lines” (’042 patent claim 1) .............................................................................................................. 20
`IV.
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’615 PATENT ................................................................................... 22
`A.
`“the operation” (’615 patent claim 11) .......................................................................................................... 22
`B.
`“precharge voltage” (’615 patent claim 11) ................................................................................................. 25
`C.
`“writing control section” (’615 patent claim 11) ....................................................................................... 27
`D.
`“data lines” (’615 patent claim 11) .................................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 38
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abbott Laboratories v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 473 F.3d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................ 3
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 3
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 22
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 6
`
`Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................... 16
`
`Hill-Rom Serv., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 7, 29
`
`In re Downing,
`754 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 23
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 11
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 17
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................. 7, 9
`
`Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L.,
`318 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................... 12
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 20
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................... 17, 20, 21
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int'l Trade Comm’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................. 2
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 38
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 535 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ...................................................................................... 24
`
`Smith v. ORBCOMM, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-666, 2015 WL 5302815 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2015) ......................................... 24
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`574 U.S. 318 (2015) ................................................................................................................ 26
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................... 26
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................... 10, 30
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 5 of 38
`
`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 Exhibits 1–22 were submitted with Solas’s opening claim construction brief. Exhibits 23–25 are
`submitted with this brief.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 6 of 38
`
`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)
`
`23 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck in support of Solas’s responsive
`claim construction brief
`24 Excerpts of the April 13, 2020 deposition transcript of Douglas R.
`Holberg from Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., LG Elec., Inc., and
`Sony Corp., Dkt. 82, Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA
`25 Patent Owner’s response to supplemental pre-institution brief,
`IPR2020-00320, Paper 8, dated May 11, 2020
`
`HP’s Proposed
`Constructions
`Samsung
`Contentions
`
`Apple’s
`Proposed Terms
`Apple’s
`Proposed
`Constructions
`Motion Hearing
`Tr.
`
`New Oxford
`American
`Dictionary
`Flasck Resp.
`Decl.
`Holberg Dep.
`
`Solas Pre-inst.
`Br.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 7 of 38
`
`I.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Defendants’ opening brief repeats arguments that intervenor Samsung—the supplier of the
`
`OLED panels in the products accused of infringing the ’338 patent—unsuccessfully made before
`
`Judge Gilstrap. For example, Defendants argue that “transistor array substrate” has “no customary
`
`meaning in the art.” But as Solas demonstrated in its opening brief and as Judge Gilstrap found,
`
`“substrate” does have a well-established meaning in the relevant art. Ex. 14, Samsung Claim
`
`Construction Order, at 11. The construction adopted by Judge Gilstrap accords with that
`
`established meaning and with a POSITA would understand the term “transistor array substrate.”
`
`Judge Gilstrap also considered and rejected Defendants’ argument against including the
`
`phrase “upon which or within which” in the construction. Ex. 14, Samsung Claim Construction
`
`Order, at 14. As Judge Gilstrap correctly found, the “evidence cited by Defendants does not compel
`
`requiring the array of transistors to be within, let alone entirely within, the substrate.” Id. Solas
`
`agrees with Samsung that the “transistor array substrate . . . comprises a plurality of transistors,”
`
`as the claims plainly require. Ex. 3, ’338 patent at 24:15–17. Nothing in Solas’s construction of
`
`“transistor array substrate” does or could change that requirement of the claims. Solas’s
`
`construction expressly requires that the transistor array substrate have a “transistor array,” either
`
`formed on the surface of the substrate or formed within the substrate. However, to the extent that
`
`the Court believes that the “comprises a plurality of transistors” is not by itself clear and that its
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 8 of 38
`
`requirement should be repeated in the construction of “transistor array substrate,” Solas would not
`
`object to such a clarification.
`
`Defendants’ argument that Judge Gilstrap’s construction “would leave indeterminate
`
`which layers are part of the transistor array substrate,” Dkt. 47 at 5, imposes an overly restrictive
`
`standard on patent claim language. It is simply not true that one must be able to look at a single
`
`claim term such as “transistor array substrate” in isolation and be able to find one and only one
`
`structure in an accused product that satisfies that claim term. The claims of the ’338 patent contain
`
`many terms such as “plurality,” “a layer,” “a surface,” “at least one of,” and “sets” that—taken in
`
`isolation—can be mapped in multiple ways to the same accused product. ’338 patent at 24:14–58.
`
`For example, claim 6 requires that “said plurality of pixels comprises a plurality of sets.” Id. at
`
`24:6–7. In any given embodiment, there is likely to be more than one way to identify the “plurality
`
`of pixels,” and there is certain to be more than one way of dividing them into “sets.” That is neither
`
`remarkable nor improper in a patent claim. It would have been perfectly proper for the patentee to
`
`have written a claim with the phrase “layered structure,” without explicitly identifying what the
`
`top and bottom layers of that structure must be. It is just as proper for the Court to adopt a
`
`construction for this term that permits flexibility in identifying the top and bottom layers.
`
`The cases Defendants cite finding that a sentence with the word “is” or “i.e.” constituted
`
`lexicography are distinguishable. In Sinorgchem, the term being defined was placed in quotes in
`
`that sentence. Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). The Federal Circuit noted that the use of quotation marks around a term is “often a strong
`
`indication” of lexicography, but described the use of “is” as weaker evidence, which merely “may
`
`signify” lexicography. Id. at 1136. Indeed, the source of the quotation used by Defendants that
`
`“‘is’ . . . may signify” lexicography was a case where the Federal Circuit found that “is” did not
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 9 of 38
`
`signify lexicography. Abbott Laboratories v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 473 F.3d 1196, 1210 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (finding no lexicography in the sentence: “The pharmaceutically acceptable polymer is a
`
`water-soluble hydrophilic polymer . . . .”). Furthermore, the “is” sentence in Sinorgchem was a
`
`categorical statement, in contrast to the statement that Defendants rely on in the ’338 patent that is
`
`expressly describing elements of a preferred embodiment. Likewise, in Edwards, the “i.e.”
`
`statement was categorical, as opposed to the “i.e.” statement of the ’338 patent that is expressly
`
`limited to elements of the Figure 6 preferred embodiment. Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`
`582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`As for Solas’s statements before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, these statements, made
`
`in a patent owner preliminary response were pointing out that the arguments that Samsung was
`
`presenting to the Board were inconsistent with the positions Samsung was taking in district court.
`
`Solas Pre-inst. Br. at 8 (“The Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response explains how the combination
`
`of Childs with Shirasaki fails to satisfy the construction of ‘transistor array substrate’ advanced by
`
`Petitioner in district court.”) This is relevant to whether the Board should have used its discretion
`
`to institute an IPR proceeding, and it not an endorsement of Samsung’s (unsuccessful) arguments
`
`in the district court.
`
`B.
`
`“project from a surface of the transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claim 1)
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction
`extend from an external surface of the
`transistor array substrate
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`extend above the upper surface of the
`transistor array substrate
`
`
`
`For this term as well, Defendants repeat arguments that intervenor Samsung unsuccessfully
`
`made before Judge Gilstrap. The claims of the ’338 patent say “a surface,” not “the upper surface.”
`
`While it was appropriate for Judge Gilstrap to clarify that this “surface” is an outer surface, it is
`
`not proper to impose the further requirement that it be “the upper surface,” simply because the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 10 of 38
`
`specification sometimes describes the interconnections as projecting from the “upper surface.”
`
`Contrast Ex. 3, ’338 patent at 11:36–41 (“from the upper surface”) with id. at 10:54–58 (“from the
`
`surface”). This is simply disregarding the words of the claim “a surface” to import a feature from
`
`the specification “the upper surface” as a limitation.
`
`Likewise, Defendants’ arguments concerning “partition walls” and “leakage” do not
`
`support their construction. Nothing in the claims refers to the interconnections serving as partition
`
`walls or preventing leakage. And nothing in the specification suggests that the interconnections
`
`must project from a specific “upper” surface in order to perform their (unclaimed) role of
`
`preventing leakage. ’338 patent at 6:24–30, 6:38–42, 12:62–13:3, 22:62–66. Interconnections that
`
`project from the local surface of the transistor array substrate can serve as partitions on that surface,
`
`even if there may be some other “upper” surface elsewhere on the substrate.
`
`Defendants’ improper effort to limit the claims should be rejected and Judge Gilstrap’s
`
`construction of “extend from an outer surface of the transistor array substrate” should be adopted.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’068 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“signal lines” / “supply lines” (’068 patent claims 1, 13)
`
`Term
`“signal lines”
`“supply lines”
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction
`conductive lines supplying signals
`conductive lines supplying
`current or voltage
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`conductive lines carrying data
`conductive lines, each supplying a
`driving current or voltage to a
`plurality of pixel circuits
`
`
`
`
`Defendants group these two terms together to identify a purported inconsistency in Solas’s
`
`proposals. There’s none. Solas’s proposal for “signal lines” was the Court’s construction in the LG
`
`case. And Solas’s proposal for “supply lines” was Solas and LG’s agreed construction. Both
`
`constructions were correct and should also be adopted here.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`Defendants primarily and repeatedly argue that Solas’s proposals would treat the terms as
`
`“interchangeable.” Defs. Br. at 29–30. This fails for multiple reasons. First, the Court found no
`
`issue with those constructions in the LG case. Second, Solas’s proposals are different. Whereas
`
`“signal lines” supply signals, supply lines supply current or voltage. And “signals” is not identical
`
`to “current or voltage.” See MS Dict. at 435 (“signal n. 1. Any electrical quantity, such as voltage,
`
`current, or frequency, that can be used to transmit information”).
`
`Third, the two constructions are substantively different. For example, a line that simply
`
`connects a battery to a circuit would meet Solas’s proposal for supply lines as “conductive lines
`
`supplying current or voltage.” It would not meet Solas’s proposal of signal lines as “conductive
`
`lines supplying signals.” Fourth, the two terms are not “interchangeable” in view of the claims.
`
`Claims 1 and 13 of the ’068 patent recite both terms and impose different requirements upon each.
`
`For example, claim 1 requires the signal lines to be patterned together with the gates of driving
`
`transistors, whereas the supply lines are patterned together with the sources and drains. Fifth,
`
`Defendants fail to explain what they mean by “interchangeable” or why that shows the
`
`constructions are incorrect. Certainly, different terms can have similar or synonymous meanings.
`
`Thus, Defendants fail to show any tension between Solas’s proposals for “signal lines” and
`
`“supply lines.” Nor do Defendants justify their own proposals for either term. As to signal lines,
`
`Defendants do not allege that “conductive lines carrying data” is the plain meaning or suggest that
`
`the patentee defined signal lines to mean “carrying data.” Their sole argument is one example of
`
`“a data driver” supplying a current signal to the signal lines. See Defs. Br. at 29 (citing ’068 patent
`
`at 15:61–63). But this does not mean that signal lines must always and only “carry data”—nor
`
`justify importing features of embodiments into the claims. And it fully supports Solas’s proposal
`
`because the supplied current signal is undoubtedly a “signal.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 12 of 38
`
`As to supply lines, Defendants’ proposal is even more incorrect. Defendants’ convoluted
`
`proposal of “conductive lines, each supplying a driving current or voltage to a plurality of pixel
`
`circuits” is certainly not the plain meaning and loaded with features from optional embodiments.
`
`Solas already explained that the specification describes supplying signals to supply lines other than
`
`“driving” currents or voltage. See Solas Br. at 13–14. As another example, Fig. 14 describes an
`
`oscillation circuit that “outputs a clock signal to the feed interconnections 90 and supply lines Z1
`
`to Zm.” ’068 patent at 16:62–65; Fig. 14. Defendants also argue that the figures show multiple pixel
`
`circuits and supply lines connected to them. See Defs. Br. at 30. But this is unsurprising and falls
`
`far short of proving that each “supply line” always requires a plurality of pixel circuits.
`
`What the patentee claimed was “supply lines,” not supply lines for driving or supply lines
`
`connected to a plurality of pixel circuits. Thus, there is a “heavy presumption” that the term covers
`
`the “full ordinary and customary meaning” of “signal lines.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321,
`
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Defendants fail to show any lexicography or clear and unmistakable
`
`disclaimer to support narrowing “supply lines” from its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`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)
`
`Term
`“formed on said plurality
`of supply lines along said
`plurality of supply lines”
`“connected to said
`plurality of supply lines
`along said plurality of
`supply lines”
`
`Solas’s Proposal
`formed on said plurality of supply
`lines over the length or direction of
`said plurality of supply lines
`connected to said plurality of supply
`lines over the length or direction of
`said plurality of supply lines
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`stacked on or making
`multiple contacts with
`said plurality of supply
`lines over the length of
`each supply line
`
`The table above showing the parties’ proposed constructions speaks for itself. Defendants’
`
`proposal changes the claim language in two ways. First, Defendants take the term “formed on” (in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 13 of 38
`
`claim 1) or “connected to” (in claim 13) and rewrite both as “stacked on or making multiple
`
`contacts with.” Second, Defendants take the term “along said plurality of supply lines” and
`
`replaces it with “over the length of each supply line.” Both are unjustified and must be rejected.
`
` “Stacked On Or Making Multiple Contacts With.” Defendants devote almost no argument
`
`to this portion of their proposal. See Defs. Br. at 25–27. Defendants merely allege that the ’068
`
`patent discloses “two ways to ‘form’ or ‘connect’ the feed interconnections to the supply lines,”
`
`and that “Defendants’ construction accurately reflects these two disclosures.” Of course, this is
`
`improper under Federal Circuit law and courts do not import limitations from embodiments into
`
`the claims. Hill-Rom Serv., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Even
`
`when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be
`
`read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope
`
`using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”).
`
`Both “formed on” and “connected to” are common English words and the ’068 patent uses
`
`those words in ordinary sense. They are also readily understandable to the jury. And neither means
`
`Defendants’ convoluted phrase “stacked on or making multiple contacts with.” The patentee never
`
`redefined both terms in this way. Thus, “formed on” and “connected to” should carry their full
`
`plain meaning. See Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“We
`
`indulge a ‘heavy presumption’ that claim terms carry their full ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`unless the patentee unequivocally imparted a novel meaning to those terms[.]”).
`
`Defendants’ proposal is also suspect because it assigns the identical construction to both
`
`terms (as well as to the longer limitations of which they are a part). For the earlier disputed terms
`
`“signal lines” / “supply lines,” Defendants vociferously argued that such constructions are
`
`incorrect and berated Solas for doing that. See. Defs. Br. at 29 (“Solas’s constructions erase any
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 14 of 38
`
`distinction between [the terms], making them interchangeable”) (“it is axiomatic that ‘different
`
`claim terms are presumed to have different meanings’”), 30 (“Solas’s proposals are substantively
`
`identical” and therefore “should be rejected.”). As explained, Defendants are wrong because
`
`Solas’s proposals for “signal lines” / “supply lines” are different. But it is ironic that Defendants
`
`criticize exactly what they are doing here. Defendants’ proposals for “formed on” and “connected
`
`to” are identical. And according to Defendants’ own argument over pages (Defs. Br. at 29–30),
`
`their proposed constructions “should be rejected.”
`
` “Over the Length of Each Supply Line.” Defendants’ proposal also replaces the claim term
`
`“along said plurality of supply lines” with “over the length of each supply line.” For this
`
`substitution, Defendants’ merely rehash arguments from the LG case. In that case, the only dispute
`
`between the parties was whether “along” meant “over the length or direction of” (Solas’s proposal)
`
`or “over the length of” (LG/Sony’s proposal). The Court already resolved that dispute in Solas’s
`
`favor and found that the plain meaning of “along” was not limited to “over the length of.”
`
`Undeterred, Defendants merely repeat LG’s same arguments, including the hackneyed
`
`attack that Solas’s proposal permits the feed interconnections to be formed on / connected to the
`
`supply lines at a single point. Defs. Br. at 25 (arguing that Solas’s constructions encompass “an
`
`arrangement where a supply line has only a single contact with one feed connection”), 28 (“a
`
`supply line making a single contact with only one feed interconnection would fall outside the scope
`
`of the claims”). But Solas already refuted that mischaracterization, repeatedly explaining that its
`
`proposal does not cover something that is “formed on” or “connected to” only at a single arbitrary
`
`point. Defendants acknowledge this. Id. at 28. Thus, it’s puzzling why Defendants waste so much
`
`space rehashing the same straw man attack.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 15 of 38
`
`Defendants also carry over LG’s arguments about the “benefits” of the ’068 patent,
`
`including the goals of avoiding “voltage drops” and “signal delays.” See Defs. Br. at 25–26, 28.
`
`But again, Solas already refuted that argument. As Solas explained, the ’068 itself makes clear that
`
`the feed interconnections do not need to run the full length of the supply lines to provide some
`
`mitigation of the voltage drop problem—and a POSITA would know this. And regardless,
`
`precisely how far the interconnections might run to obtain precisely how much benefit does not
`
`matter in the eyes of the Federal Circuit. Neither LG, nor Defendants here, can cite any caselaw
`
`holding that that benefits described in the specification should be imported into the claims. Because
`
`there is none—let alone any that would trump the heavy presumption that the term “along” carries
`
`its full ordinary and customary meaning. See Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d 1314 at 1323.
`
`Defendants then cite Solas expert Mr. Flasck’s deposition in the LG case for the alleged
`
`concession that feed interconnections connected to supply lines at “only at one point” would not
`
`achieve the full benefits of the invention. See Defs. Br. at 28. But (a) “at a single point” has never
`
`been Solas’s position and (b) whether that scenario would reduce some measure of benefit is
`
`irrelevant to whether those benefits should be imported into the claims. If Defendants want to rely
`
`on deposition testimony from the LG case, the testimony of LG’s expert Dr. Holberg is far more
`
`probative. Dr. Holberg undermined the positions advanced on this term. He repeatedly testified
`
`that “along” could be satisfied by going over the entire length or merely a portion of the length.
`
`Holberg Depo. at 131:24–133:8, 133:25–134:7, 135:16–18. And he agreed that the purported
`
`“purpose” of minimizing resistance or voltage drops that Defendants now rely on are found
`
`nowhere in the claims. Id. at 148:5–6, 148:21–149:10.
`
`Finally, Defendants provide zero support for changing the claim term “along said plurality
`
`of supply lines” to “over the length of each supply line.” The claim describes a relationship between
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 16 of 38
`
`interconnections (plural) and supply lines (plural). There is no reason to rewrite it as a relationship
`
`between interconnections (plural) and each supply line (singular). Not even LG suggested such a
`
`requirement. Defendants’ proposal incorporates LG’s proposal but includes additional,
`
`unsupported limitations. It is even more incorrect and should be rejected.
`
`C.
`
`“source” / “drain” (’068 patent claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 17)
`
`Term
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“source”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`source electrode
`
`“drain”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`drain electrode
`
`Defendants seek to construe the terms “source” / “drain” as “source electrode” / “drain
`
`electrode.” Their primary argument is disclaimer by implication. See Defs. Br. at 31 (citing Bell
`
`Atlantic). But the intrinsic evidence does not support this argument. The specification uses the
`
`terms “source,” “drain,” and “electrode” hundreds of times, but never once uses the terms “source
`
`electrode” or “drain electrode.” In contrast, the specification does describe “gate electrodes,”
`
`“pixel electrodes,” and “counter electrodes.” ’068 patent at 2:17, 3:48, 3:53. Likewise, the claims
`
`recite “source,” “drain,” “pixel electrode” and “counter electrode,” but never recites “source
`
`electrode” or “drain electrode.” See id. cls. 1, 5 12, 13, 17.
`
`The overwhelming implication of this usage is that the patentee knew how to—but did
`
`not—claim a “source electrode” or “drain electrode.” Instead, the patentee chose the terms
`
`“source” and “drain.” The Court should not rewrite them differently from what the patentee wrote
`
`and the examiner allowed. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`Defendants’ arguments for redefinition fail for multiple reasons. The cited discussion of
`
`Fig. 5 does not even say “electrode”—much less “source electrode” or “drain electrode.” See Defs.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 50 Filed 07/16/20 Page 17 of 38
`
`Br. at 31 (c