`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 10
` Entered: July 15, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00497
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, BEVERLY M. BUNTING,
`and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Dismissal of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00497
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–5, 7–
`11, 13, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 (“the ’974 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Concurrently with the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder.
`Paper 3 (“Joinder Motion”). The Joinder Motion seeks to join this
`proceeding with LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display
`Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01092 (PTAB) (“the ʼ1092 IPR”).
`Joinder Motion 1. Patent Owner filed an opposition to the Joinder Motion.
`Paper 7 (“Opposition”). At the time Petitioner filed its Petition and Motion
`for Joinder, the Board had not yet decided whether to institute an inter
`partes review in the ʼ1092 IPR.
`Petitioner asserts that the ʼ1092 IPR involves the same patent and
`same issues as this proceeding. See infra. As stated by Petitioner in the
`Motion for Joinder, “the invalidity grounds raised in this IPR are identical to
`the invalidity grounds raised in the [ʼ1092] IPR.” Joinder Motion 1.
`On January 13, 2015, we entered a Decision in the ʼ1092 IPR denying
`the Petition as to all challenges. ʼ1092 IPR, Paper 9 (“Institution Decision”).
`We determined that, applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`the petitioner in that proceeding, LG Display Co., Ltd., had failed to
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at
`least one challenged claim of the ʼ974 patent. Id. at 14. LG Display Co.,
`Ltd. subsequently filed a Request for Rehearing, which we denied. ’1092
`IPR, Papers 14, 17.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00497
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that because the petitions in this case and the
`ʼ1092 IPR include identical grounds and arguments, the Petition here should
`be denied. Prelim. Resp. 2.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that the Petition in this case
`should be denied and the Joinder Motion dismissed.
`
`II. DENIAL OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. References
`Petitioner relies on the same references as those in the ʼ1092 IPR1:
`Funamoto
`US 5,619,351
`May 10, 1994
`Ex. 1007
`Tsuchiyama
`US 5,548,271
`June 24, 1994
`Ex. 1008
`Nakayama
`US 5,654,779
`Dec. 29, 1994
`Ex. 1009
`
`Petitioner also relies on the same Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. as
`in the ʼ1092 IPR (“Escuti Decl.”). Ex. 1004.
`
`
`B. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13, and 17 of the ʼ974
`patent on the same grounds as those asserted in the ʼ1092 IPR:
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 3–5, 7–11, 13
`1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13
`13, 17
`
`References
`Funamoto
`Tsuchiyama and Funamoto
`Funamoto and Nakayama
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`
`1 As in the ʼ1092 IPR, Petitioner here also states that it is relying on
`Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) from the ʼ974 patent specification. Pet. 8.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00497
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`C. Decision
`In view of the identity of the challenges to the ʼ974 patent in this
`
`Petition and the petition in the ʼ1092 IPR, we deny institution of inter partes
`review in this proceeding on the same grounds as those on which we denied
`institution of inter partes review in the ʼ1092 IPR. See ʼ1092 IPR Institution
`Decision 5–14. In this proceeding, we are not apprised of a reason that
`merits yet another chance. Petitioner simply presents the same arguments
`now that we found unavailing in both the Petition and Request for Rehearing
`in the ’1092 IPR.
`
`
`III. DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`Because the petition in IPR2014-01092 was denied and inter partes
`
`review was not instituted, and because the Petition in this proceeding is
`being denied, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is dismissed as moot. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(c) (permitting joinder if Director institutes inter partes review).
`
`IV. ORDER
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`no trial is instituted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is dismissed as
`
`moot.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00497
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda K. Streff
`Baldine B. Paul
`Anita Y. Lam
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Justin B. Kimble
`BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
