Filed on behalf of: Nichia Corporation
`
` Paper ____
`
` Date filed: December 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Martin M. Zoltick, Lead Counsel
`Michael H. Jones, Back-up Counsel
`Mark T. Rawls, Back-up Counsel
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`Emails: mzoltick@rfem.com
` mjones@rfem.com
` mrawls@rfem.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.,
`LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC AND L G SOURCING, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00001
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ ix
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY .................................................. 9
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,530,250 ....................................................................... 13
`
`(A) The Claims of the ’250 Patent ............................................................. 14
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`Problems Addressed by the ’250 Patent .............................................. 15
`
`The Patented Products Have Received Industry Praise, Solved
`A Long-Felt, but Unresolved Need in the Industry, and
`Achieved Immense Commercial Success. .......................................... 16
`
`(D) Claim Construction ............................................................................. 19
`
`(E)
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 20
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC REASONS WHY NO INTER PARTES
`REVIEW SHOULD BE INSTITUTED FOR SELECTED CLAIMS AND
`GROUNDS .................................................................................................... 21
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`Standards for Granting Inter Partes Review ....................................... 21
`
`Inter Partes Review Should Not Be Instituted for Any of the
`Grounds Because the Petition Fails To Explain How the
`References Can Be Combined While Balancing the Competing
`Design Considerations Taught by the References. ............................. 27
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`All Grounds Are Defective. ...................................................... 27
`
`Petitioners’ Expert’s Testimony Should be Given Little
`or No Weight. ............................................................................ 32
`
`ii
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00002
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Ground 1 Fails to Demonstrate a Reasonable Likelihood
`That Any Challenged Claim Would Be Found
`Unpatentable. ............................................................................ 33 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`c) 
`
`d) 
`
`The Petition Fails to Explain Why Koung Should
`Be Modified. ................................................................... 34 
`
`Urasaki Addresses a Different Problem than the
`’250 Patent. ..................................................................... 36 
`
`The Combination of Koung and Urasaki Fails to
`Disclose or Suggest Each and Every Element of
`the Challenged Claims .................................................... 40 
`
`The Petition Fails to Provide Any Technical
`Explanation Regarding How the Proposed
`Modifications Would Actually Work in a
`Predictable Manner Without Changing the Purpose
`of Koung. ........................................................................ 41 
`
`Ground 2 Fails to Demonstrate a Reasonable Likelihood
`That Any Challenged Claim Would Be Found
`Unpatentable. ............................................................................ 43 
`
`Grounds 1-2 Fail to Demonstrate a Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claim 12 Would Be Found
`Unpatentable. ............................................................................ 46 
`
`Grounds 3-4 Fails to Demonstrate a Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claim 11 Would Be Found
`Unpatentable. ............................................................................ 49 
`
`Ground 5 Fails to Demonstrate a Reasonable Likelihood
`That Any Challenged Claim Would Be Found
`Unpatentable. ............................................................................ 50 
`
`Ground 6 Fails to Demonstrate a Reasonable Likelihood
`That Any Challenged Claim Would Be Found
`Unpatentable. ............................................................................ 52 
`
`3) 
`
`4) 
`
`5) 
`
`6) 
`
`7) 
`
`8) 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00003
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Grounds 7-8 Fail to Demonstrate a Reasonable
`Likelihood That Any Challenged Claim Would Be Found
`Unpatentable. ............................................................................ 54 
`
`9) 
`
`(C) 
`
`Inter Partes Review Should Not Be Instituted On Any of the
`Grounds Because the Petition Failed to Address Objective
`Indicia of Non-Obviousness. ............................................................... 55 
`
`(D) 
`
`Inter Partes Review Should Not Be Instituted Because This
`Petition Is Cumulative to the Park Petition. ........................................ 58 
`
`(E)  Grounds 1, 3, 5 and 7 Should Be Denied As Redundant, and
`Ground 6 Should At Least Be Denied With Respect to Claim
`19. ........................................................................................................ 60 
`
`1) 
`
`2) 
`
`3) 
`
`4) 
`
`Ground 1 Should Be Denied As Redundant of Ground 2. ....... 60 
`
`Ground 3 Should Be Denied As Redundant of Ground 4. ....... 61 
`
`Ground 5 should be Denied As Redundant of Ground 6. ......... 61 
`
`Ground 5-7 Should Be Denied As Redundant of Ground
`8 for Claim 19. .......................................................................... 61 
`
`(F)  The Petition Should Be Denied With Respect to Claims 1, 7,
`17, 19 and 21, As Cumulative of VIZIO’s Petitions ........................... 62 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00004
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Cases 
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 23, 26
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 56
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-01710, Paper 9 (Mar. 29, 2016) ............................................................ 59
`AVX Corp. v. Greatbatch, Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00697, Paper 57 (Oct. 21, 2015) ........................................................... 20
`Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp.,
`475 U.S. 809, 106 S.Ct. 1578, 89 L.Ed.2d 817 (1986) .................................. 25, 42
`Google Inc. v. EveryMD.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (May 22, 2014) ...................................................... 22, 29
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus. LLC,
`IPR2013-00552, Paper 6 (Mar. 7, 2014) ....................................................... 22, 29
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... passim
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 60
`Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 (July 31, 2013) ........................................................... 23
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 56
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 25
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 56
`In re Hedges,
`783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 25
`In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048 (CCPA 1976) ................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`v
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00005
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`In re Young,
`927 F.2d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 25
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 20
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... passim
`Lake Cable, LLC v. Windy City Wire Cable and Tech. Prod., LLC,
`IPR2013-00528, Paper 11 (Feb. 19, 2014) ........................................................... 24
`LG Elec. v. Rosetta-Wireless Corp.,
`IPR2016-01516, Paper 23 (Feb. 3, 2017) ............................................................... 8
`Naughty Dog, Inc. v. McRO, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00197, Paper 11 (May 28, 2014) ................................................... passim
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,
`812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 56
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 56
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 6
`Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3, LLC,
`IPR2016-01751, Paper 15 (Mar. 22, 2017) ............................................... 5, 57, 58
`Robotic Vision Sys. v. View Eng’g, Inc.,
`189 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 55
`Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 26
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (Dec. 30, 2013) ........................................................... 23
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 17 (Feb. 25, 2014) ........................................................... 26
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 (Oct. 14, 2014) ............................................................. 58
`Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01588, Paper 15 (Feb. 17, 2017) ............................................................. 6
`
`
`
`vi
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00006
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Spansion Inc. v.Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2014-01116, Paper 12 (Dec. 22, 2014) ........................................................... 26
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 56
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 60
`Toshiba Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00201, Paper 11 (May 21, 2014) .................................................... 25, 26
`Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01203, Paper 13 (Jan. 28, 2015) ............................................................ 58
`W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 25
`Wowza Media Sys, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 (July 13, 2013) .........................................................4, 6
`Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Orthophoenix, LLC,
`IPR2014-00912, Paper 9 (Dec. 16, 2014) ............................................................. 24
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 27
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pre-AIA) .................................................................................. 50
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................ 1, 21, 58
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................... passim
`Other Authorities 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ....................................................................................... 21, 22
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) ............................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) ................................................................................. 21, 28, 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ........................................................................................ 21, 28
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) ................................................................................................. 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 26
`Rules 
`
`
`
`vii
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00007
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00008
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert.
`Exhibit B to Complaint for Patent Infringement, Nichia Corp. v. Lowe’s
`Cos., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00613, Dkt. 1-2 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2016)
`[Copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight
`Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JGR, Dkt. 193 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26,
`2016)].
`Sheng Liu and Xiaobing Luo, LED Packaging for Lighting
`Applications: Design, Manufacturing and Testing, Chemical Industry
`Press (2011).
`Trial Transcript for May 11, 2015 AM Session, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG, Dkt. 165 (E.D.
`Tex. May 14, 2015).
`Trial Transcript for May 11, 2015 PM Session, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG, Dkt. 166 (E.D.
`Tex. May 14, 2015).
`Trial Transcript for May 12, 2015 AM Session, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG, Dkt. 167 (E.D.
`Tex. May 14, 2015).
`Trial Transcript for May 12, 2015 PM Session, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG, Dkt. 168 (E.D.
`Tex. May 14, 2015).
`Trial Transcript for May 13, 2015 AM Session, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG, Dkt. 170 (E.D.
`Tex. May 14, 2015).
`Trial Transcript for May 13, 2015 PM Session, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG, Dkt. 171 (E.D.
`Tex. May 14, 2015).
`Trial Exhibit PTX0829, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1136, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1137, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1139, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1140, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`ix
`
`2101
`2102
`
`2103
`
`2104
`
`2105
`
`2106
`
`2107
`
`2108
`
`2109
`
`2110
`
`2111
`
`2112
`
`2113
`
`2114
`
`
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00009
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Trial Exhibit PTX1147, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1150, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1152, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1156, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1158, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1265, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1268, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1273, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Exhibit PTX1274, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No.
`2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Demonstrative NDX-2000 to NDX-2050, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Trial Demonstrative NDX-601 to NDX-610, Nichia Corp. v. Everlight
`Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Chang et al., “Light emitting diodes reliability review,”
`Microelectronics Reliability, 52:762-782 (2012).
`
`2115
`
`2116
`
`2117
`
`2118
`
`2119
`
`2120
`
`2121
`
`2122
`
`2123
`
`2124
`
`2125
`
`2126
`
`
`
`x
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00010
`
`

`

`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Patent Owner, Nichia Corporation
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`(“Nichia” or “Patent Owner”), submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,530,250 (“’250 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`filed by Petitioners, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC and L G
`
`Sourcing, Inc. (“Lowe’s” or “Petitioners”).
`
`I. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Lowe’s Petition fails to meet the threshold set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) for instituting inter partes review for at least four independent reasons.
`
`First, the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that at least one
`
`of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Petitioners assert only obviousness
`
`grounds that rely on combinations of disparate disclosures. But the Petition
`
`includes no explanation of (1) why the skilled person would ignore different,
`
`inconsistent, or incompatible teachings within those disclosures in attempting to
`
`combine the teachings to obtain the claimed invention, (2) why the skilled person
`
`would have believed the combinations would be successful, or (3) how the
`
`proposed combinations actually would work. This lack of explanation is
`
`especially important because the claimed light-emitting diode (“LED”) technology
`
`is complicated, and it is well-established that changes in any one element can have
`
`unforeseeable and contradictory effects on the overall device. In fact, the Federal
`
`Circuit in its opinion in Everlight, which Petitioners attached to their Petition,
`
`
`
`1
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00011
`
`

`

`approved the district court’s assessment of the LED technology reflected in the
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`’250 patent:
`
`The [district] court found that LED design technology is a complex
`technological space, where many design considerations pull in different
`directions simultaneously. It found that “LED package design involves the
`simultaneous integration and balancing of multiple design considerations,
`including electrical, optical, thermal, and mechanical design challenges.” Id.
`The court emphasized that:
`[m]ultiple challenges must be addressed when designing an
`LED package: (i) electrical design challenges: We have to
`conduct a relatively high-current density through the small LED
`chip and connect the LED chip to the leads; (ii) optical design
`challenges: The intensities are very high, because the LED chip
`is very small and the power emitted by the LED is quite high.
`And, therefore, we need to handle a very high-optical radiation
`density; (iii) thermal design challenges: The LED chip
`inevitably creates heat, and this heat needs to be conducted
`away; and (iv) mechanical design challenges: includes
`protecting the LED chip from any external effect, such as
`moisture or mechanical intrusion. These multiple requirements
`can be contradictory and can pull the design in different
`directions.
`
`
`
`2
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00012
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1015, 00051 (emphasis added, internal citations omitted in original).)
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Notwithstanding these findings, the Petition argues obviousness based on
`
`combinations of elements from disparate sources without addressing, or even
`
`acknowledging, the challenges presented by the applicable technology.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed combinations of prior art suffer from exactly the same
`
`problem the district court identified – they teach different aspects of LED design
`
`that “can be contradictory and can pull the design in different directions.” (Ex.
`
`2101 ¶86; see also id. ¶¶39-96, 127-128, 145-161; Ex. 2102, FF222; Ex. 2104,
`
`34:18-23; Ex. 2108, 107:8-108:2.) Given this fact, one would have expected
`
`Petitioners’ expert (Dr. Shanfield) to explain: how the skilled artisan would have
`
`balanced and reconciled the multiple disparate teachings, why the skilled person
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success from the combinations of
`
`elements, and how the proposed combinations actually would work. (Ex. 2101
`
`
`1 Unless made to paragraph, column, or figure, citations to exhibits are to the page
`
`number affixed to the exhibit by Patent Owner or Petitioners.
`
`2 References made hereinafter to “FF###” are to the findings of fact in the district
`
`court’s decision. (Ex. 2102.) The trial exhibits and transcripts on which the
`
`district court relied have been available on the public record of the trial in the
`
`proceedings. They are also included as Exs. 2104-2123.
`
`
`
`3
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00013
`
`

`

`¶102.) The arguments in the Petition fail to provide this evidence, and Dr.
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Shanfield’s declaration parrots the arguments in the Petition without adding to
`
`them. The Petition thus lacks a road map sufficient to establish obviousness for
`
`any of the asserted grounds and leaves to the Board the task of trying (if possible)
`
`to put the puzzle pieces together. (Ex. 2101 ¶¶141-163.) Patent Owner
`
`respectfully submits that the Board should not undertake Petitioners’ burden. As
`
`explained in Wowza Media Sys, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.:
`
`[I]nstituting inter partes review does not relate to whether the Board
`would have known something was obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`the art, or whether the Board can show that some invention would
`have been obvious based on evidence submitted by a challenger.
`Rather, the threshold question is whether the information presented in
`the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and any response filed under
`§ 313 shows that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.”
`
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 at 8 (July 13, 2013) (underline emphasis added,
`
`italicized emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Second, Petitioners ignore significant, known objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness establishing the patentability of claims 1, 7, 17 and 21. (Ex. 2101
`
`¶¶125, 163; Pet. at 68; Ex 1003 ¶105.) In the related Everlight case, Patent Owner
`
`Nichia proffered extensive evidence showing industry praise for, the commercial
`
`
`
`4
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00014
`
`

`

`success of, and the long-felt but unmet need for a new type of LED device and a
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`process for manufacturing those devices, as claimed in the ’250 patent. (FF175-
`
`179.) The district court found a nexus with respect to the combinations of
`
`elements in claims 1, 7, 17 and 21 of the ’250 patent and these objective indicia.
`
`(Id.) This ruling was appealed, and the district court’s determination that these
`
`claims were not invalid, including the finding of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness, was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. (Ex. 1014, 0003.)
`
`Petitioners were fully aware of the district court’s decision in Everlight
`
`because Nichia provided Lowe’s with a copy of the decision – including the
`
`findings of fact on objective indicia – over a year ago with its complaint in the
`
`related litigation. (Ex. 2102.) Nonetheless, the Petition includes no rebuttal
`
`evidence, and Petitioners’ expert inexplicably asserts that “there is no evidence of
`
`secondary considerations or objective factors of nonobviousness.” (Ex. 1003
`
`¶141.) Moreover, Petitioners introduced into this record a copy of the Federal
`
`Circuit’s decision in Everlight, but chose not to discuss objective indicia. (Ex.
`
`1015.) Petitioners should have addressed objective indicia in the Petition because
`
`it was clearly a foreseeable issue. See Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3, LLC,
`
`IPR2016-01751, Paper 15 at 23 (Mar. 22, 2017) (“[K]nown evidence of secondary
`
`considerations should be addressed in the petition.”). Moreover, given the first
`
`basis for denial of the Petition discussed above, the failure to address the objective
`
`
`
`5
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00015
`
`

`

`indicia adds even more weight to the evidence of nonobviousness and confirms
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`that Petitioners have not met their burden. Id. at 32-33; see also Wowza Media
`
`Sys, LLC, IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 at 8; see also Semiconductor Components
`
`Indus., LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc., IPR2016-01588, Paper 15 at 29 (Feb. 17,
`
`2017) (“In the absence of any persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument from
`
`Petitioner, and given the extensive litigation record, we presume that any
`
`commercial success of [the] product is due to the patented invention.”) (citing PPC
`
`Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 746-47
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`Third, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny this Petition, at least
`
`in part, to the extent it is cumulative to petitions filed by another party. VIZIO
`
`filed two petitions for inter partes review against the ’250 patent. (Pet. 2-3.)
`
`Lowe’s admits that this Petition utilized portions of the publicly-available
`
`materials filed in the VIZIO IPRs, retained the same expert, and identifies no
`
`material differences between this Petition and the VIZIO IPRs, at least for those
`
`claims that are also challenged in the VIZIO Petitions. (Pet. 2.) There is no
`
`reason to waste the Board’s time litigating twice the same grounds, on the same
`
`claims, with the same prior art and expert. Given the complexity of the additional
`
`grounds, Patent Owner respectfully submits that judicial economy, the burden on
`
`the Board and Parties, are best served by denying at least the grounds that were
`
`
`
`6
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00016
`
`

`

`already asserted in the VIZIO Petitions, if instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`Moreover, while the Petition adds one additional reference compared to the
`
`corresponding VIZIO Petition, and addresses additional dependent claims, the
`
`Petition does nothing to cure the deficiencies of the VIZIO Petition. Indeed,
`
`adding more references to the asserted combinations only compounds those
`
`deficiencies by introducing additional modifications based on multiple, disparate
`
`teachings. The additional claims also do not merit institution. For example, as
`
`explained below, the Petition seeks to challenge claim 12 which requires “concave
`
`portions” on “a[n] inner side wall surface of the lead frame surrounding the at least
`
`one notch,” but points to a top surface of the lead frame to do so. This fails to
`
`meet Petitioners’ burden. See Section IV(B)(5) below.
`
`Fourth, this Petition should be denied because it is cumulative to another
`
`Petition filed contemporaneously by Petitioners challenging the same claims of the
`
`same patent on 24 grounds of obviousness based on 6 difference references,
`
`including 4 out of the 5 references asserted in this Petition. IPR2017-02014, Paper
`
`No. 9 (“Park Petition”). Petitioners have provided no reasons why this Petition
`
`also should be granted on top of the Park Petition other than it “relies on a different
`
`primary reference” and “raises different grounds.” (Pet. 2.) Neither Petition
`
`explains the need for two petitions on the same claims, let alone the combined 32
`
`different grounds. Indeed, grounds 17-24 of the Park Petition include Koung, the
`
`
`
`7
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00017
`
`

`

`same primary reference considered in this Petition. If the Board were to determine
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`that a trial should be instituted for some of the 32 grounds, this Petition should be
`
`denied as cumulative. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Further, as stated in Nichia’s
`
`preliminary response to the corresponding VIZIO Petition, Nichia represents that it
`
`can (and will as necessary) antedate Koung. Thus, there is no reason for the Board
`
`to institute here.
`
`Finally, assuming, arguendo, that the Board considers institution of this
`
`Petition over the points raised above, the Petition can nonetheless be denied in-part
`
`because many of the grounds are redundant. The Petition advances grounds that
`
`involve a number of redundant combinations of 5 different references. The
`
`Petition fails to identify, as required under Graham, what is missing from any
`
`particular reference. The Petition also fails to argue any of the grounds
`
`independently. Rather, the Petition advances all 8 grounds in the same section
`
`(Pet. Section IV.B), adding references for each claim, one after the other, to reach
`
`final comprehensive combinations. This Board need not consider each argument
`
`brick-by-brick. Petitioners’ arguments are best viewed as directed to the entire
`
`combination of references, and the intermediate combinations can, and should, be
`
`denied as redundant. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Rosetta-Wireless Corp., IPR2016-
`
`01516, Paper 23, at 4-5 (Feb. 3, 2017) (the Board only considered petitioner’s four-
`
`reference combination even though the grounds expressly included the primary
`
`
`
`8
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00018
`
`

`

`reference alone, or in combination with one or more secondary references,
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`“[b]ecause [petitioner] reli[ed] on the cited secondary references throughout its
`
`analysis”).
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`The ’250 patent is directed to the design and manufacture of packaged LED
`
`devices with particular features and benefits. Petitioners’ sole argument is that the
`
`combination of elements in the challenged claims would be a straightforward
`
`obvious implementation choice. (E.g., Pet. at 27, 31, 33, 35, 38.) This reflects an
`
`incorrect understanding of LED technology.
`
`LEDs are used in a variety of applications, including LCD backlighting for
`
`cell phones, laptops computers, and televisions; video display applications, such as
`
`billboards and scoreboards; automotive applications, such as interior and exterior
`
`vehicle lighting; and general lighting, such as lightbulbs. (FF19.)
`
`The light emitting component of an LED is a semiconductor “chip” that
`
`emits light when a current is applied. (Ex. 2101 ¶28.) In most instances, one or
`
`more LED chips are encompassed in a structure called the LED “package,”
`
`resulting in a packaged “LED device.” (Id. ¶¶28-30.) The LED package protects
`
`the chip(s) from environmental damage, determines the propagation and color of
`
`the emitted light, provides an electrical and structural connection with the product
`
`in which the LED device is used, manages heat dissipation, and performs other
`
`
`
`9
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1025 Page 00019
`
`

`

`functions. (Id.) Each element of the package design can affect the LED device’s
`
`IPR2017-02011
`Patent 8,530,250
`
`
`operation. (Id. ¶¶38-66, 80-83.)
`
`Petitioners argue throughout the petition that LED package design and
`
`manufacture involve “routine” and “straightforward” application of known “design
`
`choices.” (Pet. 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39-41, 47, 52, 55-57, 59, 63, 68, 75-77, 82.)
`
`The district court and Federal Circuit opinions in Everlight, as well as leading
`
`experts, say otherwise. LED package design is complicated and involves the
`
`simultaneous integration and balancing of multiple design considerations,
`
`involving electrical, optical, thermal, and mechanical design challenges. (Ex.
`
`1014