Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`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 REPLY 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 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’338 PATENT .......................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claims 1, 4) ....................................................................... 1
`
`“project from a surface of the transistor array substrate” (’338 patent claim 1) .............................. 3
`
`II. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’068 PATENT .......................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`“signal lines” / “supply lines” (’068 patent claims 1, 13) ................................................................ 5
`
`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) 7
`
`C.
`
`“source” / “drain” (’068 patent claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 17) ................................................................... 9
`
`III. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’042 PATENT .................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`“selection period” (’042 patent claim 1) ........................................................................................ 10
`
`B.
`“sequentially selects said plurality of selection scan lines in each selection period” (’042 patent
`claim 1) ................................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“designating current” (’042 patent claim 1) ................................................................................... 15
`
`“current lines” (’042 patent claim 1) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’615 PATENT .................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`“the operation” (’615 patent claim 11) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`“precharge voltage” (’615 patent claim 11) ................................................................................... 20
`
`“writing control section” (’615 patent claim 11) ........................................................................... 21
`
`“data lines” (’615 patent claim 11) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 2
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 9
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 5
`
`ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................... 7, 14, 18, 23
`
`JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2005)................................................................................................. 18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed.Cir.2004)................................................................................................. 18
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................... 6, 13, 18
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns AB,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 18
`
`Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 7
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`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
`were submitted with Solas’s responsive brief. Exhibit 26 is submitted with this reply brief.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`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
`26 Excerpts from Defendants LG and Sony’s responsive claim
`construction brief in Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., LG Elec.,
`Inc., and Sony Corp., Dkt. 71, Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA
`
`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.
`LG Resp. Br.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`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’ responsive brief focus less on the substance and more on purported
`
`inconsistencies in Solas’s positions. Defendants also argue there is “important new evidence that
`
`supports Defendants’ proposed construction.” Defs. Resp. at 1–2. Defendants’ arguments are
`
`wrong-headed and Solas has an easy response. In the Eastern District and IPR proceedings, Solas
`
`and Samsung discussed compromise constructions to narrow the specific disputes and issues in
`
`those proceedings. Those discussions occurred before Judge Gilstrap construed “transistor array
`
`substrate.” Now, Solas believes Judge Gilstrap’s construction should be adopted. At a minimum,
`
`adopting it would ensure that consistent constructions are being applied against Defendants’
`
`accused products and Intervenor Samsung who supplies key components for those products.
`
`In the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap, Solas filed a Notice of Agreement
`
`agreeing to Samsung’s proposal not because Solas agreed with the substantive correctness of
`
`Samsung’s construction but “to streamline the disputed issues of claim construction presently
`
`before the Court.” Defs. Ex. AA06 at 1. That Solas sought to narrow disputes in that case isn’t
`
`disclaimer about the proper scope of “transistor array substrate.” And it certainly doesn’t give rise
`
`to estoppel. This is especially true where, as Judge Gilstrap concluded, Samsung’s and Defendants’
`
`proposal was unsupported by specification and the extrinsic evidence. See Samsung Markman at
`
`10–15. Solas agrees with Judge Gilstrap’s reasons for rejecting Defendants’ proposal.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`Defendants’ argument about the IPR proceedings involving the ’338 patent initiated by
`
`Samsung is similarly unavailing. Solas simply stated in its IPR pre-institution brief that it agreed
`
`to the construction and cited the Eastern District Notice of Agreement. While “statements made
`
`by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding . . . can be relied upon to support a finding of
`
`prosecution disclaimer” (Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)),
`
`Solas did not make any statements that constitute clear and unmistakable disclaimer of claim scope
`
`here. Nor do the facts show any reason to bind Solas.
`
`This is evidenced by the full context of Solas’s IPR pre-instruction brief. Solas never said
`
`Samsung’s proposal is correct. Solas didn’t need to because it didn’t that believe Samsung’s
`
`asserted prior art disclosed the disputed limitation even under Samsung’s proposed construction.
`
`See Defs. Ex. AA06 at 27–28 (“Applying [Samsung’s construction] to their mapping below, it is
`
`easy to see precisely how Samsung’s theory cannot hold up.”). Solas wanted to narrow the disputes
`
`to show why Samsung’s invalidity argument was wrong.
`
`Defendants then contend, about the “containing an array of transistors” aspect of their
`
`proposal, that what makes this case different from the case before Judge Gilstrap is Defendants’
`
`emphasis on the claim language. See Defs. Resp. at 3–4 (“Defendants respectfully submit that the
`
`claim language of the ‘338 Patent is decisive . . . .”). Specifically, Defendants point to the ’338
`
`patent claims’ requirement that the “transistor array substrate . . . comprises a plurality of
`
`transistors.” Defs. Br. at 2. This argument does not help Defendants.
`
`As Solas explained in the responsive brief, if the Court believes repeating the “comprising
`
`a plurality of transistors” portion of the claim would clarify the meaning of the disputed term,
`
`Solas would not object to such clarification. But the claims’ use of the phrase “comprising a
`
`plurality of transistors” doesn’t support Defendants’ construction, which injects a separate
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`limitation, “containing,” into the claims where the claims themselves only require that the
`
`transistor array substrate “comprise” a plurality of transistors. A POSITA would not have
`
`understood the words “containing” (not in the claims) and “comprising” (present in the claims) to
`
`be identical as Defendants imply. After all, the ’338 patent specification uses “comprise” and
`
`“contain” differently and in different contexts—a point which Defendants ignore. Compare, ’338
`
`patent, at 2:38, 3:10, 15:20, with 10:59 11:42, 12:17, 12:55–12:16, 13:45.
`
`Defendants’ other arguments based on the specification amount to the same arguments
`
`considered and rejected by Judge Gilstrap. Defendants’ emphasis on the limiting effect of the terms
`
`“is” and “i.e.” is unavailing for the reasons in Solas’s responsive brief in Judge Gilstrap’s claim
`
`construction order. See Solas Resp. at 2–3; Samsung Markman at 13–14.
`
`Nor does Defendant’s final argument—that “multiple different combinations of layers in a
`
`single device could alternatively be considered to be a ‘transistor array substrate’” (Defs. Resp. at
`
`5)—support their construction. This argument amounts to a complaint that Solas’s construction
`
`could be mapped onto accused products in more than one way—which, even if true, is no reason
`
`to limit the scope of the claims. See Solas Resp. at 2; see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[C]laims are construed objectively and without
`
`reference to the accused device[.]”).
`
`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
`
`
`
`Defendants’ responsive arguments largely repeat what intervenor Samsung’s already
`
`argued unsuccessfully to Judge Gilstrap. Defendants’ response brief spends nearly two pages
`
`discussing the same specification language and patent figure presented to Judge Gilstrap (in and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`Defendants’ opening brief) to argue that the only “surface” from which a transistor can project in
`
`the context of the ’338 patent is an “upper” surface.” See Defs. Resp. at 5–7. This argument isn’t
`
`supported by sufficient evidence to overcome the prohibition against importing limitations from
`
`the specification into the claims. JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d
`
`1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (courts “do not import limitations into claims from examples or
`
`embodiments appearing only in a patent’s written description … unless the specification makes
`
`clear that the ‘patentee … intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be
`
`strictly coextensive.”) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`Defendants’ final point implies that Judge Gilstrap declined to apply the “upper” term as
`
`Samsung requested because it believed “upper” lacked sufficiently clear meaning in the context of
`
`the claims. See Defs. Resp. at 6–7. This is incomplete. Judge Gilstrap rejected Samsung’s
`
`invitation also because its citations to the specification did not “justify limiting the disputed term
`
`to one particular outer surface rather than any outer surface.” Samsung Markman at 18.
`
`The same weakness pervades Defendants’ arguments here. Indeed, Defendants here have
`
`not disputed Judge Gilstrap’s conclusions except with attorney argument unsupported by evidence.
`
`Likewise, Defendants’ argument that an “interconnection cannot project upward and extend
`
`beyond any outer surface other than the upper surface” is allegedly contradicted by “the very
`
`construction that Solas advances, which requires the interconnections to ‘extend beyond the outer
`
`surface of the transistor array substrate”’ is wrong. Defs. Resp. at 7. This argument is irrelevant
`
`because it attacks the construction that Solas requested in the Eastern District of Texas but Judge
`
`Gilstrap declined to adopt. Now, in this case: Solas is requesting that the Court adopt the
`
`construction that Judge adopted for this term.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`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’ responsive brief merely rehashes arguments from the opening brief. The crux
`
`of Defendants’ argument is that “different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Defendants’
`
`repeat this argument on nearly every page of their briefing. See Defs. Resp. at 30, 32; Defs. Br. at
`
`29–30. But it fails for simple reasons. First, Solas’s proposals for “signal lines” and “supply lines”
`
`are different, so claim differentiation doesn’t apply. Indeed, there is zero tension the two
`
`constructions, as the Court recognized by adopting them in the LG case where defendants made
`
`the same claim differentiation argument. See LG Resp. Br. at 27 (LG/Sony arguing that “different
`
`claim terms are presumed to have different meanings,” so “signal lines” must have a meaning
`
`different from the agreed-construction of “supply lines”).
`
`Second, Defendants’ argument does nothing to show that Solas’s proposals are incorrect
`
`or that Defendants’ proposals are correct. Solas provides unrebutted evidence that its proposals are
`
`the plain meanings of “signal lines” and “supply lines.” In contrast, Defendants’ proposals are not
`
`the plain meanings, and there is no evidence the patentee intended to redefine the terms.
`
`
`
`“signal lines”—Solas’s proposal, “conductive lines supplying signals,” is the plain
`
`meaning. See Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 95–96 (citing Microsoft Computer Dictionary). The ’068 patent uses
`
`the term in the ordinary sense. It describes signals (such as a “current signal”) being supplied to
`
`signal lines. See ’068 patent at 1:38–45, 16:14–21. In contrast, Defendants’ proposal, “conductive
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`lines carrying data” sounds more like a reference to “data lines.” Nowhere does the ’068 patent
`
`equate signal lines with “data lines” or describe signal lines as lines for “carrying data.”
`
`
`
`“supply lines”—Again, Solas’s proposal, “conductive lines supplying current or voltage,”
`
`is the plain meaning. Defendants don’t argue otherwise. Nor do they suggest that their proposal,
`
`“conductive lines, each supplying a driving current or voltage to a plurality of pixel circuits,” is
`
`the plain meaning of anything. Instead, Defendants’ arguments are based on mischaracterizing the
`
`specification and violating Federal Circuit law.
`
`
`
`As Solas’s demonstrated, the specification describes supply lines carrying various currents
`
`or voltages, such as “write currents,” “current signals,” and “clock signals”—none of which are
`
`characterized as “driving” currents or voltages. See Solas Br. at 14; Solas Resp. Br. at 6.
`
`Defendants acknowledge this. See Defs. Resp. at 31. But Defendants argue their construction is
`
`correct because supply lines “can also” supply a driving current and their construction is not
`
`limited to “only” a driving current. See id. This makes no sense. Claim construction is about
`
`requirements. Defendants’ construction requires a “driving” current or voltage and excludes other
`
`currents and voltages. That’s why Defendants’ proposal for “signal lines” must be rejected. It is
`
`contradicted by—and would exclude—various other signal lines described in the specification.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ additional requirement that “each” supply line operate with a “plurality of
`
`pixel circuits” is unsupported. There is zero evidence the patentee intended to relinquish claim
`
`scope in such this way. Defendants’ cited cases (see id. at 32) are inapposite and in no way
`
`undermine the Federal Circuit’s prohibition against importing embodiments.
`
`In Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, the claims, specification, and prosecution history all
`
`supported a narrow construction. Regents of Univ. of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp., 717 F.3d
`
`929, 935–36 (Fed. Cir. 2013). And critically, the specification’s use of “the present invention”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`operated as disclaimer. Id. at 936. In ICU Medical, the adopted construction was the plain meaning,
`
`and “ICU offer[ed] no support from any intrinsic or extrinsic source” that the plain meaning was
`
`broader. ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Neither case is remotely applicable to terms or intrinsic evidence here.
`
`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
`
`Defendants’ responsive brief is full of flawed arguments. First, Defendants argue their
`
`language “stacked on or making multiple contacts with” is justified because it reflects their own
`
`descriptions of two exemplary embodiments. See Defs. Resp. at 26 (describing the “stacked”
`
`embodiment and the “grid” embodiment). But claim construction should be rooted in the intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic evidence. It doesn’t permit a defendant to make up its own descriptions of
`
`embodiments and them in import them into the claims. Nowhere does the patent define “formed
`
`on” or “connected to” to mean “stacked on.” And the phrase “making multiple contacts with”
`
`appears nowhere in the claims, specification, or prosecution history. Thus, Defendants’ proposal
`
`“violates nearly every tenet of claim construction and amounts to a wholesale [] rewriting of the
`
`claim.” Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc., 753 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Solas’s proposal, in contrast, is the plain meaning of the terms and consistent with every
`
`embodiment. The language “over the length or direction of,” for example, is rooted in the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`specification. See ’068 patent at 6:2–6 (stating that feed interconnections and its common
`
`connections are provided “in parallel to” the supply lines), 23:1–6 (same). Defendants imply—
`
`without any actual argument or evidence—that contacts over less than the entire length of the
`
`supply lines would be non-enabled. See Defs. Resp. at 27. This empty assertion is entitled to no
`
`weight. And, Solas’s proposal is fully enabled. At least Figs. 21 and 22 and their descriptions show
`
`feed interconnects formed on / connected to “over the direction of” supply lines.
`
`Second, Defendants’ arguments against Solas’s proposal are unavailing. See Defs.’ Resp.
`
`at 27–28. Defendants’ criticize Solas for focusing on the term “along,” but the meaning of that
`
`term is precisely what is disputed in the parties’ proposals (just as it was in the LG case). And
`
`dictionary definitions are instructive because the claim term uses “along” in the same way as it is
`
`used in English. Defendants do not and cannot dispute this.
`
`Instead, Defendants rely heavily on an obvious typo in Solas’s opening brief. See Defs.
`
`Resp. at 27. But of course a POSITA would understand that feed interconnections are formed or
`
`connected to the supply lines over the length of direction of the supply lines. This is exactly what
`
`Mr. Flasck states in the cited paragraph of his declaration. See Solas Br. at 14 (citing Flasck Decl.
`
`¶ 86). And Solas’s entire argument is about why its proposed construction is correct.
`
`Third, Defendants’ argument for assigning the identical construction to “formed on” (in
`
`claim 1) and “connected to” (in claim 13) fails. See Defs. Resp. at 28. The ’068 patent uses the
`
`terms in their ordinary sense, and they have different meanings in plain English. For example,
`
`“connected” implies joined or linked, whereas “formed” implies shaped or arranged. Feed
`
`interconnections can be “connected to” supply lines without being “formed on” them. Indeed,
`
`Defendants themselves argue that “distinct terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Defs.
`
`Resp. at 30. But this contradicts their identical proposal for “formed on” and “connected to.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 14 of 30
`
`Defendants’ remaining arguments are about importing features or benefits from exemplary
`
`embodiments and were already rejected in the LG case. See Defs. Resp. at 29–30. They are also
`
`contrary to Federal Circuit law. As to Defendants’ requirement that feed interconnects be over the
`
`length of “each supply line,” Defendants hardly mention it. Their only support is an out-of-context
`
`statement from Mr. Flasck. See id. at 30. But in the very paragraph Defendants cite, Mr. Flasck
`
`was actually explaining the claimed relationship between feed interconnects (plural) and supply
`
`lines (plural). Flasck Decl. ¶ 90 (“The claim language refers to pluralities”). This undermines
`
`Defendants’ proposal, which imposes requirements about individual interconnections or lines. Id.
`
`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
`
`The Court is not required to construe the common technical terms “source” and “drain.”
`
`See Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 96–102. As the Federal Circuit instructed, “there are limits to the court’s duties
`
`at the claim construction stage. For example, courts should not resolve questions that do not go to
`
`claim scope, but instead go to infringement, or improper attorney argument.” Eon Corp. IP
`
`Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Although it’s unclear
`
`what Defendants are doing, it appears they want to add extra words to the claim so they can later
`
`interpret those words to argue for non-infringement. This is improper. At a minimum, Defendants
`
`haven’t articulated a clear dispute over claim scope that requires resolution by the Court.
`
`Defendants’ briefing is full of shifting positions and arguments. Defendants began by
`
`asserting “disclaimer by implication” but then abandon that argument. Defendants proposed
`
`construction was “source / drain electrode” but then concede that “electrode” requires clarification.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 15 of 30
`
`For the first time in response—and months after the deadline to disclose extrinsic evidence—
`
`Defendants add three dictionary definitions for “electrode.” See Defs. Resp. at 33 n. 8. Defendants
`
`then imply that electrode means “conductor.” But just like the word “electrode,” the ’068 patent
`
`never says “source conductor” or “drain conductor.”
`
`Finally, in contrast to everything they say previously, Defendant propose a new 20-word
`
`construction based on a lengthy explanation from Mr. Flasck’s declaration. See id. at 34. But Mr.
`
`Flasck never proposed that as a construction. His entire point was that “source / drain” are (a)
`
`common terms that a POSITA would understand and (b) not limited to an “electrode.” See Flasck
`
`Decl. ¶ 101. It is inappropriate to take a one-word term and replace it with a 20-word phrase itself
`
`full of technical terms. This would only mangle the claims and confound the jury.
`
`In sum, Defendants (1) proposed “electrode,” (2) sought to further construe its
`
`construction, and (3) reverts to an entirely different, 20-word construction. These machinations
`
`only confirm what Solas has been saying all along. The terms “source” and “drain” should carry
`
`their plain meanings, and no further construction is required.
`
`III. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’042 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“selection period” (’042 patent claim 1)
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction
`time period during which a plurality of
`pixel circuits is selected
`
`
`HP’s Proposed Construction
`time duration in which a selected selection
`scan line is kept active
`
`HP’s principal response to Solas’s proposal is that it is a “contrived” “attempt to define
`
`
`
`‘selection period’ without reference to a ‘selection scan line.’” Defs. Resp. at 8. But HP’s argument
`
`views the term “selection period” in a vacuum, not in view of the claims as a whole. For example,
`
`claim 1 requires, among other limitations, “a selection scan driver which sequentially selects said
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 16 of 30
`
`plurality of selection scan lines in each selection period.” The claims themselves, fully consistent
`
`with the speciation, state that the selection driver selects “selection scan lines.” It would be
`
`redundant and confusing to import “a selection scan line” to the construction of “selection period.”
`
`HP also argues that Solas’s proposal “leads to absurd results” because “at any given time
`
`during the operation of a display panel, one row of pixel circuits in the display panel is selected.”
`
`Defs. Resp. at 9. But to the extent this argument is understandable, it would also apply to HP’s
`
`proposal. Under HP’s own proposal leads to exactly the same result for the same reason—at any
`
`given time at least one row of pixel circuits are selected.
`
`To support its construction, HP resorts to misrepresenting the intrinsic record and even
`
`Solas’s opening brief. HP represents that “the specification expressly defines ‘selection period’ as
`
`the time when one corresponding ‘selection scan line’ is selected and kept active . . . .” Defs. Resp.
`
`at 8 (emphasis added). But not only is this untrue, the phrase “kept active” appears nowhere in the
`
`patent. Moreover, HP represents that the specification also defines “other inactive times as a ‘non-
`
`selection period’ (red) for that ‘selection scan line.’” Id. But the word “inactive” similarly does not
`
`occur in the specification. HP then