IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD;
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF TSU-JAE KING LIU, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD;
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF TSU-JAE KING LIU, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`In accordance with the Scheduling Order (Paper No. 10) as modified by the
`
`Joint Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling Order (Paper No. 21), Petitioners
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Display Co., Ltd., and Sony Corporation
`
`provide the following response to the motion for observation regarding the cross-
`
`examination testimony of Petitioners’ reply witness Dr. Tsu-Jae King Liu (Paper
`
`No. 28) filed by Surpass Tech Innovation LLC (“Patent Owner”) on April 4, 2016.
`
`As set forth in the Responses below, Patent Owner has improperly used its
`
`observations as a vehicle to raise new issues. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768 (“An observation (or response) is not an opportunity
`
`to raise new issues, re-argue issues, or pursue objections.”). Patent Owner’s
`
`observations also mischaracterize Dr. Liu’s testimony and reach unwarranted
`
`inferences from the cited testimony of Dr. Liu in view of other testimony of Dr.
`
`Liu cited herein that has either been omitted or ignored by Patent Owner.
`
`Response to Observations 2 and 3 (Ex. 2027, 142:24-144:22, 144:23-145:22)
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 142, line 24 to page 144, line 22; page 144,
`
`line 23 to page 145, line 22; and page 144, line 23 to page 145, line 22 are relevant
`
`to the technology disclosed by Janssen ’708 (Ex. 1004). Paper No. 28, pp. 1-2.
`
`Observations 2 and 3 are improper in that Patent Owner fails to cite
`
`testimony from Dr. Liu explaining the context of the pixel symbols of Janssen
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`’708. The Board should consider the entirety of Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding the
`
`pixel symbol of Janssen ’708 at page 148, line 19 to page 149, line 1.
`
`Response to Observation 6 (Ex. 2027, 156:7-15)
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 157, lines 7 to 15 is relevant to the symbol
`
`drawn by Dr. Liu in Exhibit E, the technology disclosed by Janssen ’708, and to
`
`the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about Janssen ’708’s pixel symbol in
`
`view of Kozaki (Ex. 1022). Paper No. 28, p. 2.
`
`Observation 6 is improper in that Patent Owner fails to cite testimony from
`
`Dr. Liu explaining the context of the pixel symbol in Kozaki. The Board should
`
`consider the entirety of Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding the pixel symbol of Kozaki
`
`at page 156, line 16 to page 157, line 17.
`
`Response to Observation 7 (Ex. 2027 at 156:21-25)
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 156, lines 21 to 25 is relevant to the
`
`technology disclosed by Janssen ’708 and to the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s
`
`testimony about Janssen ’708’s pixel symbol in view of Kozaki. Paper No. 28, pp.
`
`2-3.
`
`Observation 7 is improper in that Patent Owner fails to cite testimony from
`
`Dr. Liu explaining the context of the pixel symbol in Kozaki. The Board should
`
`consider the entirety of Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding the pixel symbol of Kozaki
`
`at page 156, line 16 to page 157, line 17.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`Response to Observation 8 (Ex. 2027 at 159:21-160:4)
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 159, line 21 to page 160, line 4 is relevant to
`
`the symbol drawn by Dr. Liu in Exhibit E, the technology disclosed by Janssen
`
`’708, and to the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about Janssen ’708’s pixel
`
`symbol in view of Johnson (Ex. 1023). Paper No. 28, p. 3.
`
`Observation 8 is improper in that Patent Owner fails to cite testimony from
`
`Dr. Liu explaining the context of the pixel symbol in Johnson. The Board should
`
`consider the entirety of Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding the pixel symbol of Johnson
`
`at page 160, line 7 to page 161, line 14.
`
`Response to Observation 9 (Ex. 2027 at 163:1-4)
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 161, lines 1 to 4 are relevant to the symbol
`
`drawn by Dr. Liu in Exhibit E, the technology disclosed by Janssen ’708, and to
`
`the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about Janssen ’708’s pixel symbol in
`
`view of Moriyama (Ex. 1024). Paper No. 28, p. 3.
`
`Observation 9 is improper in that Patent Owner fails to cite testimony from
`
`Dr. Liu explaining the context of the pixel symbol in Moriyama. The Board
`
`should consider the entirety of Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding the pixel symbol of
`
`Moriyama at page 163, line 18 to page 164, line 25, and page 165, line 8 to page
`
`166, line 17.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`Response to Observations 10 and 11 (Ex. 2027 at 168:2-171:3; 173:18-20;
`175:7-11; 177:16-178:16)
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 168, line 2 to page 171, line 3, page 173,
`
`lines 18 to 20, page 175, lines 7 to 11, and page 177, line 16 to page 178, line 16
`
`are relevant to the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about the examination
`
`of Exhibit 1025 and about the examiner’s interpretation of Janssen’s “pixel”
`
`elements 46 and 100. Paper No. 28, pp. 3-4.
`
`Observations 10 and 11 are improper in that the observations are raising a
`
`new issue about the competency of the U.S. Patent Office Examiner’s
`
`interpretation of Exhibit 1025, which is the U.S. counterpart application to Janssen
`
`’708. The cited testimony of Dr. Liu references a section of the Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Brief (Paper No. 22, p. 23). Howwever, Dr. Liu never offered an opinion on the
`
`examination skills or competency of the U.S. Patent Examiner with respect to
`
`Exhibit 1025. (Ex. 1020). Furthermore, the Board should consider the entirety of
`
`Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding the prior art references cited in Exhibit 1025 at page
`
`176, line 7 to page 177, line 15 and their applicability to active matrix liquid
`
`crystal displays.
`
`Response to Observations 12 and 13 (Ex. 2027 at 179:21-180:13, 181:16-24)
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 179, line 21 to page 180, line 13, and page
`
`181, lines 16 to 24 are relevant to whether Janssen ’708 discloses or could be
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`modified to use a thin-film transistor to provide current to Janssen’s “pixel”
`
`elements 46 and 100. Paper No. 28, p. 4.
`
`Patent Owner has mischaracterized Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding
`
`availability of discrete power transistors to argue that the transistors of Janssen
`
`’708 could be modified to power an incandescent lamp. Accordingly, observations
`
`12 and 13 are improper in that the observations are raising a new issue of
`
`modifications to Janssen ’708 to allow it to supply sufficient current to an
`
`incandescent lamp. Furthermore, the Board should consider the entirety of Dr.
`
`Liu’s testimony regarding the hypothetical modification of Janssen ’708 at page
`
`180, line 18 to page 181, line 15 to supply current to an incandescent lamp, and
`
`how a thin-film transistor cannot supply sufficient current to drive an incandescent
`
`lamp.
`
`Response to Observation 14 (Ex. 2027 at 182:19-25; 184:7-13)
`
`
`Patent Owner alleges that page 182, lines 19 to 25, and page 184, lines 7 to
`
`13, are relevant to the probative value of Dr. Liu’s analysis of the technology
`
`disclosed by Janssen ‘708. Paper No. 28, p. 5.
`
`First, the portion of Dr. Liu’s testimony cited by Patent Owner references a
`
`section of the Petitioners’ Reply Brief (Paper No. 22, p. 23). However, ramp
`
`retrace is not discussed in Dr. Liu’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1020). Thus, this
`
`observation is substantively irrelevant to the probative value of Dr. Liu’s analysis
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`of the technology disclosed in Janssen ’708. Second, the Board should consider
`
`the entirety of Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding ramp retrace and its irrelevance to the
`
`technology disclosed in Janssen ’708 at page 183, lines 14 to 22, and page 184,
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By___________________________
`Jay I. Alexander
` Registration No.: 32,678
`Andrea G. Reister
` Registration No.: 36,253
`Gregory S. Discher
` Registration No.: 42,488
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 662-6000
`
`
`Walter E. Hanley Jr.
` Registration No.: 28,720
`John Flock
` Registration No.: 39,670
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`(212) 425-7200
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`6
`
`lines 14 to 24.
`
`
`Date: April 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 18th day of April 2016,
`
`the foregoing Petitioners’ Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`Regarding Cross-Examination of Tsu-Jae King Liu, Ph.D. was served via
`
`electronic mail by agreement of the parties upon the following counsel of record
`
`for Patent Owner:
`
`Wayne M. Helge
`Donald L. Jackson
`Michael R. Casey
`whelge@dbjg.com
`djackson@dbjg.com
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P.
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jay I. Alexander
`Registration No.: 32,678
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 18, 2016
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
