Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`Filed: September 9, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO.,
`LTD, and SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
` ____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Company, LTD., Samsung Display Company,
`LTD., and Sony Corporation (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5 of Patent 7,420,550 B2 (“the
`’550 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Surpass
`Tech Innovation LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
`Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–5 of the ’550 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner indicates that the ’550 patent is asserted in Surpass Tech
`Innovation LLC v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-
`00337-LPS) and Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Sharp Corporation (Civil
`Action No. 1:14-cv-00338-LPS). Pet. 1. We denied inter partes review of
`the ’550 patent on March 10, 2015 in IPR2015-00022, Paper 9.
`B. The ’550 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’550 patent is titled “Liquid Crystal Display Driving Device of
`Matrix Structure Type and Its Driving Method.” Ex. 1001, Title. The ’550
`patent specifically discloses a matrix structure arrangement for a liquid
`crystal display (LCD) panel in which pixels are arranged in rows and
`columns.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`An example of this structure is shown in Figures 4A and 4B of the
`’550 patent. Figure 4A is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4A, reproduced above, depicts a schematic view showing the
`arrangement of the gate lines and the data lines of the display panel. Ex.
`1001, 4:49–51. Figure 4B is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4B, reproduced above, depicts an enlarged schematic sectional view
`taken from Figure 4A, which shows the arrangement of the gate lines and
`the data lines and the state of the gate and the source, which are connected to
`the gate lines and the data lines, of each thin film transistor. Id. at 4:52–56.
`As shown in Figure 4A and Figure 4B, data lines D1, D1’, D2, D2’ are
`connected to source drivers, and the data lines are grouped in pairs, such as
`D1 and D1’. The first and the second data lines D1, D1’ of the first group of
`data lines respectively are connected with the sources of all the thin film
`transistors Q of the odd and the even rows of the first column. Id. at 8:23–
`26.
`
`The driving device includes a group of thin film transistors Q with
`matrix array, which consists of N rows and M columns of thin film
`transistors, wherein each thin film transistor Q can drive one pixel, so NxM
`pixels (shown by rectangle with dotted line) can be driven. Id. at 8:12–17.
`The first gate line G1 is connected with the gates of all the thin film
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`transistors Q of the first row, the second gate line G2 is connected with the
`gates of all the thin film transistors Q of the second row, and so are the
`others. Id. at 8:17–20.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Independent claim 1 of the ’550 patent is illustrative and recites:
`1. A liquid crystal display driving device of matrix structure
`type including:
`a group of thin film transistors with matrix array
`consisting of N rows and M columns of thin film transistors,
`wherein each thin film transistor can drive one pixel so that
`N×M of pixels can be driven;
`a group of N gate lines connected to the gate drivers and
`insulated with each other, wherein the first gate line is
`connected with the gates of all the thin film transistors of the
`first row, the second gate line is connected with the gates of all
`the thin film transistors of the second row . . . and the Nth gate
`line is connected with the gates of all the thin film transistors of
`the Nth row; and
`M groups of data lines connected to the source drivers
`and insulated with each other, wherein the first and the second
`date lines of the first group of date lines are respectively
`connected with the sources of all the thin film transistors of the
`odd and the even rows of the first column, the first and the
`second data lines of the second group of data lines are
`respectively connected with the sources of all the thin film
`transistors of the odd and the even rows of the second
`column . . . and the first and the second data lines of the
`Mth group of data lines are respectively connected with the
`sources of the all thin film transistors of the odd and the even
`rows of the Mth column, and the first data lines and the second
`data lines of each group of data lines are connected with the
`same source driver.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 4):
`Ground
`Statutory
`Basis
`Number
`Ground
`1.
`§ 103
`2.
`§ 103
`3.
`§ 103
`4.
`§ 103
`5.
`§ 103
`
`Janssen ’1901
`Janssen ’7082 and Janssen ’190
`Janssen ’708 and Horii3
`Janssen ’708 and APA4
`Janssen ’708, Janssen ’190, and
`Kubota5
`Janssen ’708, Horii, and Kubota
`Janssen ’708, APA, and Kubota
`
`6.
`7.
`
`
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`1
`1–3
`1–3
`1–3
`4, 5
`
`4, 5
`4, 5
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`Invents Act (AIA), the Board interprets claims using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`Petitioner proposes claim constructions for “the gate drivers” and “the
`source drivers,” “[t]he first and the second date lines of the first group of
`date lines,” “[g]ate lines…insulated with each other” and “data lines . . .
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0186190 A1, published Dec. 12,
`2002 (Ex. 1003) (“Janssen ’190”).
`2 PCT Publication WO 02/075708 A2, published Sept. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1004)
`(“Janssen ’708”).
`3 JP Publication 2-214818, published Aug. 27, 1990 and translation (Exs.
`1006, 1007) (“Horii”).
`4 Background of U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550 B2, issued Sept. 2, 2008 (Ex.
`1001, Background) (“APA”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,300,927 B1, issued Oct. 9, 2001 (Ex. 1005) (“Kubota”).
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`insulated with each other,” and “a space between the neighboring data
`lines.” See Pet. 11–17. Patent Owner does not specifically contest these
`claim constructions. Prelim. Resp. 1–35.
`We adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the following terms,
`as we determine them to be consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction:
`
`
`CLAIM TERM
`
`date lines
`insulated with each other
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`data lines
`spaced apart from and parallel to
`each other
`
`
`For purposes of this decision, we need not construe any other
`limitations of the challenged claims.
`II. ANALYSIS
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1–3 over the Combination of Janssen ’708 and
`Horii
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–3 would have been obvious over the
`combination of Janssen ’708 and Horii. Pet. 41–50. Upon consideration of
`Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s contentions. In particular, we are persuaded that based on this
`record, as Petitioner alleges, Janssen ’708 teaches the Odd/Even Alternating
`Connections structured using thin film transistors, as required by claim 1.
`Pet. 23, 41; Ex. 1007, Figs. 3, 5; Ex. 1013 ¶ 41. Figure 3 of Janssen ’708 is
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 of Janssen ’708 depicts a video display driving circuit and
`method for driving pixels in a column row matrix that aims to “reduc[e] the
`capacitive load in the columns of the matrix” by splitting the columns into
`multiple column lines. Ex. 1004, 1:6–24. We agree that Figure 3 of Janssen
`’708 depicts that data line 80A is connected to the source of each transistor
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`on the odd rows and data line 80B is connected to the source of each
`transistor on the even rows. Ex. 1004, 5:11–15, Fig. 3.
`Petitioner alleges that one skilled in the art would add Horii’s gate
`drivers to Janssen ’708 to make a functional device. Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1013
`¶ 60. Petitioner argues that one skilled in the art would utilize a pair of gate
`drivers disclosed in Figure 6(a) of Horii, because one skilled in the art would
`understand that distributing the gate lines to either side of the LCD panel and
`dedicating separate gate drivers to driving the odd and the even gate lines
`will be easier and less costly to manufacture because of the lower density of
`driver connections that would be required when compared to placing all of
`the gate drivers on one side of the display. Pet. 41–42, Ex. 1013 ¶ 60.
`Based on this record, we agree that Horii teaches gate drivers on either side
`of the LCD panel. Ex. 1007, Fig. 6(a).6
`Regarding claim 2, Petitioner alleges the combination of Janssen ’708
`and Horii disclose having the source drivers on the top side of the display
`panel. Pet. 42, Ex. 1004, Fig. 3; Ex. 1007, Fig. 1. Additionally, Petitioner
`argues, and we agree, that Janssen ’708 discloses a multiplexing circuit 74
`that switches data between each respective source driver (i.e., DAC) and its
`
`6 Patent Owner argues Horii is deficient as lacking an affidavit (Prelim.
`Resp. 29–30). Patent Owner has not followed the proper procedure for
`filing a formal objection so this issue is premature. If Patent Owner
`chooses to file an objection, the Board directs the parties to 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64. Any objection to evidence filed prior to institution of trial must be
`filed within ten business days of institution of the trial. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64(b)(1). The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely
`served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence
`within ten business days of service of the objection. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64(b)(2).
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`associated pair of data lines (e.g., lines 80A and 80B in Figs. 3, 5), which
`teaches “the data transfer is switched by an electronic switch,” as recited in
`claim 2. Pet. 35; Ex. 1004, Fig. 3; Ex. 1013 ¶ 44.
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and requires “a space between the
`neighboring data lines to prevent them from short circuit.” We are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one skilled in the art would
`understand that a space exists between the neighboring data lines in Figure 3
`of Janssen ’708, given that there are pixels formed between the second data
`line and the first data line of another group. Pet. 42, Ex. 1004, Fig. 3; Ex.
`1013 ¶ 45.
`Patent Owner argues this ground is substantially similar to the ground
`presented unsuccessfully in IPR2015-00022, and that the Board should deny
`the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 22–23. However, in
`IPR2015-00022, we found that the Petitioner in that case, Sharp, had failed
`to provide “evidence to support the argument that Janssen’s transistors are
`thin film transistors” and that Sharp provided no evidence to support the
`combination of Janssen ’708 with any of the secondary references. See
`IPR2015-00022, Paper 9, 10–11. Here, unlike in IPR2015-00022, Petitioner
`directs our attention to evidentiary support for the combination of Janssen
`’708 with Horii, including a declaration. See Pet. 50–52 (citing Ex. 1013).
`Moreover, the Petition in this case, unlike in the petition in IPR2015-00022,
`points to evidence including dictionary definitions and supporting testimony
`to establish that Janssen ’708’s disclosure of a transistor is a thin film
`transistor. See Pet. 23 (citing Exs. 1011; 1008; 1013 ¶ 41).
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s Declarant’s theory as to
`why the transistors in Janssen ’708 are thin film transistors is faulty because
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`it relies on a technical consideration that incorporates financial feasibility.
`Prelim. Resp. 23. Based on this record, we are not persuaded, at this point in
`the proceeding, that this testimony is automatically deficient because it
`includes financial factors that one skilled in the art might consider.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that based on this record,
`Petitioner has established sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Janssen ’708 and Horii render obvious claims 1–3.
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 1–3 over the Combination of Janssen ’708 and
`APA
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–3 would have been obvious over the
`combination of Janssen ’708 and APA. Pet. 50–57. Upon consideration of
`Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s contentions. For example, Petitioner points to APA, which
`explains that multiple gate drivers and source drivers in LCDs, in the form
`of separate gate driver ICs and separate source driver ICs, were known in the
`prior art. Pet. 50–52, 5, 6 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 1–3, 1:24–3:15). Thus, we
`agree that APA teaches the source drivers and gate drivers as recited in
`claim 1.
`Petitioner argues, and we agree, that APA describes that display panel
`10 includes data lines 111 and gate lines 121 connected to the sources and
`the gates, respectively, of thin film transistors (“TFT”) shown as Q1. Pet. 5
`(citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1A). Pixel 13 is defined as the area enclosed between
`two adjacent data lines 111 and two adjacent gate lines 121 and includes
`TFT Q1. Id. at 5–6. Multiple source drivers 11 are connected on the top side
`of the periphery of the active matrix as viewed in the Figure and provide the
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`voltage signals to the data lines 111. Ex. 1001, 1:36–41. The voltages on
`the data lines are transferred to the pixels via the TFTs, which are switched
`on and off by the control signal from the gate driver 12 to the gate line 121
`(G1 in Fig. 1B). Id. at 1:43–52.
`Petitioner contends that Janssen ’708 describes and illustrates that
`data line 80A is connected to the source of each transistor on the odd rows
`and data line 80B is connected to the source of each transistor on the even
`rows, which forms an Odd/Even Alternating Connection structure. Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:11–15, Fig. 3; Ex. 1013 ¶ 42). We agree that Figure 3 of
`Janssen ’708 depicts that data line 80A is connected to the source of each
`transistor on the odd rows and data line 80B is connected to the source of
`each transistor on the even rows. Ex. 1004, 5:11–15, Fig. 3.
`Petitioner argues a person skilled in the art would look to the gate
`drivers available in the prior art (i.e., APA) to add to Janssen ’708 to make a
`functional device. Pet. 50. This argument is supported by the testimony of
`Dr. Liu, who declares, for example, that a person of skill in the art “would
`expect to achieve a functioning device by incorporating gate drivers such as
`those disclosed in the Admitted Prior Art into the driving circuit of Janssen
`’708.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 47.
`Patent Owner argues this ground is substantially similar to the ground
`presented unsuccessfully in IPR2015-00022 and that the Board should deny
`the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 30. However, in
`IPR2015-00022, we found that the Petitioner in that case, Sharp, had failed
`to provide “evidence to support the argument that Janssen’s transistors are
`thin film transistors” and that Sharp provided no evidence to support the
`combination of Janssen ’708 with any of the secondary references. See
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`IPR2015-00022, Paper 9, 10–11. Here, unlike in IPR2015-00022, Petitioner
`directs attention to evidentiary support for the combination of Janssen ’708
`with APA, including a declaration. See Pet. 50–52 (citing Ex. 1013). In this
`case, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
`reason to incorporate the gate drivers disclosed in the APA into the device of
`Janssen [’]708 to achieve a functioning device” and directs attention to a
`declaration to support the statement. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 47).
`Moreover, as discussed above, the Petition in this case, unlike in the petition
`in IPR2015-00022, points to evidence including dictionary definitions and
`supporting testimony to establish that Janssen ’708’s disclosure of a
`transistor is a thin film transistor. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1011, 210; Ex.
`1008, 1834; Ex. 1013 ¶ 41). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that
`Petitioner has established sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the
`combination of Janssen ’708 and APA renders obvious claims 1–3.
`
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 4 and 5 over the Combination of
`Janssen ’708, APA, and Kubota
`Petitioner alleges dependent claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious
`over the combination of Janssen ’708, APA, and Kubota. Pet. 57–60. Claim
`4 depends from claim 2 and adds the limitation “wherein the gate driver is a
`chip installed on glass.” Claim 5 also depends on claim 2 and adds the
`limitation “wherein the gate driver is an integrated gate driver circuit
`installed on glass.”
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Janssen ’708, APA, and
`Kubota teaches or suggests these elements. In particular, Petitioner contends
`Kubota teaches attaching multiple driver circuits using chip on glass
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`techniques. See Pet. 57–60 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:35–43, Fig. 3B, 1:60–67, Fig.
`4; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 62–66). We agree that Kubota teaches mounting a driver
`circuit IC chip by chip on glass techniques, and an insulating substrate made
`of glass that has a driver circuit on the substrate. Ex. 1005, 1:35–43, Fig.
`3B, 1:60–67, Fig. 4.
`Patent Owner argues this ground is substantially similar to the ground
`presented unsuccessfully in IPR2015-00022 and that the Board should deny
`the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 30. However, unlike in
`IPR2015-00022, in this case Petitioner directs attention to evidentiary
`support for the combination of Janssen ’708, APA, and Kubota, in the form
`of a declaration to support the combination of the cited references. Pet. 57–
`60 (citing Ex. 1013).
`Thus, given the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner
`has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claims 4 and 5 of the ’550 patent are unpatentable as
`obvious over the combination of Janssen ’708, APA, and Kubota.
`
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 4 and 5 over the Combination of
`Janssen ’708, Horii, and Kubota
`Petitioner alleges dependent claims 4 and 5, would have been obvious
`over the combination of Janssen ’708, Horii, and Kubota. Pet. 57–60. As
`discussed above, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions that Kubota teaches
`attaching multiple driver circuits using chip on glass techniques. See Pet.
`57–60 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:35–43, Fig. 3B, 1:60–67, Fig. 4; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 62–
`66).
`
`Patent Owner argues this ground is substantially similar to the ground
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`presented unsuccessfully in IPR2015-00022 and that the Board should deny
`the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 30. However, unlike in
`IPR2015-00022, in this case Petitioner directs attention to evidentiary
`support for the combination of Janssen ’708, Horii, and Kubota, in the form
`of a declaration to support the combination of the cited references. Pet. 57–
`60 (citing Ex. 1013).
`Thus, given the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner
`has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claims 4 and 5 of the ’550 patent are unpatentable as
`obvious over the combination of Janssen ’708, Horii, and Kubota.
`
`
`E. Other Asserted Grounds
`As summarized in Section I(D) of this Decision, Petitioner asserts
`seven grounds of unpatentability. The other asserted grounds add the
`Janssen ’190 reference to the grounds asserted against claims 1–5, or assert
`the Janssen ’190 reference alone. See Pet. 4.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), the Board has discretion to “authorize
`the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or
`some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” The Board
`also “may deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the
`challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`(permitting institution of review under certain conditions, but not mandating
`institution of review under any conditions).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(b).
`We exercise our discretion and decline to institute review based on
`any of the other asserted grounds advanced by Petitioner that are not
`identified below as being part of the trial. See, e.g., Pet. 6; 35 U.S.C. §
`314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that the
`challenged claims 1–5 of the ’550 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a). At this juncture, we have not made a final determination with
`respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, nor with respect to
`claim construction.
`
`III. ORDER
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Janssen ’708 and
`APA;
`Claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Janssen ’708 and
`Horii;
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Janssen ’708,
`APA, and Kubota; and
`Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Janssen ’708,
`Horii, and Kubota; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jay I. Alexander
`Andrea G. Reister
`Gregory S. Discher
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`jalexander@cov.com
`areister@cov.com
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`Michelle Carniaux
`Lewis Popovski
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`mcarniaux@kenyon.com
`lpoposvki@kenyon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wayne M. Helge
`Donald L. Jackson
`Michael R. Casey
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY L.L.LP.
`whelge@dbjb.com
`djackson@dbjb.com
`mcasey@dbjb.com
`
`18