Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 35
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`SONY CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`SOLAS’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTI ON BRIEF
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 35
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS ..................................................................................... 2
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,907,137 (“’137 Patent”) ........................................................................................................ 2
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,432,891 (“’891 patent”) ........................................................................................................ 2
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 (“’068 Patent”) ........................................................................................................ 3
`III.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 3
`IV.
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’137 PATENT ..................................................................................... 5
`A.
`“a gradation current having a current value” (’137 patent claims 10, 36) ....................................... 5
`B.
`“gradation signal” (’137 patent claims 10, 15, 36, 37, 39 ) ...................................................................... 8
`C.
`“generates, as the gradation signal, a non-light emitting display voltage having a
`predetermined voltage value” (’137 patent claim 15) “a non-light emitting display voltage having
`a predetermined voltage value for allowing the optical element to perform a non-light emitting
`operation is generated as the gradation signal (’137 patent claim 39) ..................................................... 10
`D.
`“. . . through a data line . . . through the data line . . . through the data line”” (’137 patent
`claims 10, 16) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
`E.
`“before” (’137 patent claim 10) / “after” (’137 patent claim 36) ........................................ 15
`V. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’891 PATENT ....................................................................................... 15
`A.
`“a third thin film transistor which during driving its gate through a driving conductor taps a
`diode driving current at an output of said first current-driving transistor and supplies a current
`measuring- and voltage regulating circuit, said current measuring- and voltage regulating circuit
`providing to the data conductor a voltage signal which is dependent on a current measuring
`result and a voltage comparison” (’891 patent claims 10, 15, 36, 37, 39) ................................................ 15
`B.
`“current measuring” (’891 patent claims 1, 3) ........................................................................................... 17
`C.
`“wherein all above mentioned elements of the driving circuit are located at a same side of
`said light emitting diode” (’891 patent claim 3) ................................................................................................... 19
`A.
`“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) ................................................................................................................................................................. 22
`B.
`“patterned” (’068 patent claims 1, 13) .......................................................................................................... 24
`C.
`“patterned together” (’068 patent claims 1, 13) ........................................................................................ 26
`D.
`“signal lines” (’068 patent claims 1, 13) ........................................................................................................ 28
`E.
`“feed interconnections” (’068 patent claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 17) ........................................................... 29
`
`VI.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’068 PATENT ................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 002
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 35
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`Flasck. Decl.
`
`Merriam-
`Webster
`Dictionary.com
`
`Ex 1 Document Description
`1 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck in support of Solas’s opening claim
`construction brief
`’137 patent
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,907,137
`’891 patent
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,432,891
`’068 patent
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068
`Joint Chart
`5
`Parties’ joint revised list of terms/constructions dated March 6, 2020
`6 Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd ed., 1997), definition of “signal” MS Dict.
`7 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (4th ed.,
`McGraw-Hill
`1989), definition of “data transmission line”
`8 Merriam-Webster Dictionary (avail. at www.merriam-webster.com,
`accessed Feb 2020), definitions of “along” and “together”
`9 Dictionary.com (avail. at www.dictionary.com, accessed Feb. 2020),
`definitions of “along” and “together”
`10 Defendant LG Display’s petition for inter partes review in IPR2020-
`00177 on the ’891 patent
`11 Defendant LG Display’s expert declaration by Dr. Hatalis in inter
`partes review in IPR2020-00177 on the ’891 patent
`12 U.S. Patent No. 5,106,652
`13 U.S. Patent No. 5,981,317
`14 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0101172
`15 U.S. Patent No. 7,250,722
`
`’891 IPR Pet.
`
`’891 IPR Decl.
`
`’652 patent
`’317 patent
`’173 app. pub.
`’722 patent
`
`
`1 All exhibits attached to the concurrently filed declaration of Neil A. Rubin.
`
`ii
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 35
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas”) and Defendants LG Display Co., LTD., LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., and Sony Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) offer not just competing
`
`claim-construction proposals but completely different approaches to claim construction.
`
`In each case, Solas’s claim term proposals stay faithful to the plain meaning and narrow
`
`from that plain meaning only when necessary under controlling Federal Circuit law or when
`
`helpful to narrow the disputes for the Court. Solas’s proposals are also the only ones that are
`
`faithful to the full scope of the intrinsic record—and the only ones that are supported by expert
`
`opinion on what a person of skill in the art would understand the terms to mean in light of the
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic record.
`
`Defendants’ proposals, on the other hand, ask this Court to recharacterize and burden clear
`
`terms by importing artificial and extraneous baggage, but Defendants cannot point to any clear or
`
`unmistakable disclaimer or lexicography to support those importations, which invites reversible
`
`error. E.g., JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Indeed,
`
`in many cases, Defendants actually import negative limitations, but those are only appropriate
`
`where the limitation is expressly disclaimed or where independent lexicography in the written
`
`description” justifies adding it. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003). And that is not the case here. To the contrary, many of Defendants’ proposals are
`
`inconsistent with—and even exclude—embodiments
`
`taught
`
`in
`
`the specification. Such
`
`constructions are “rarely, if ever, correct.” SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278,
`
`1285-86 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For other proposals, Defendants’ proposed constructions are inconsistent
`
`with the claim language itself. These are also improper under controlling law—and do nothing to
`
`help any fact-finder, but rather only make that job more difficult. They should be rejected.
`
`
`
`1
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 35
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS2
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,907,137 (“’137 Patent”)
`
`The ’137 patent concerns driving circuitry for self-luminous displays that emit light due to
`
`the current flowing through pixel elements, such as displays utilizing organic electroluminescent
`
`or LED elements. ’137 patent at 1:17–26, 36–43. The current flowing through such devices is
`
`commonly controlled by a gate voltage on a drive transistor. Id. at 3:15–30. But the relationship
`
`between the gate voltage and the current may change “depending on the usage time, the drive
`
`history and the like,” and in particular the minimum “threshold voltage” on the gate necessary to
`
`permit current flow may shift. Id. The ’137 patent provides structures and methods for driving the
`
`pixel circuits that solve problems in the prior art, including by detecting the threshold voltage for
`
`each pixel and applying a “compensation voltage” that compensates for such differences in such
`
`threshold voltages. Id. at 3:59–65, Fig. 1.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,432,891 (“’891 patent”)
`
`The ’891 patent concerns an active matrix drive circuit with current feedback for an organic
`
`light-emitting diode (OLED) image seen.’891 patent at Abstract, 1:5–61. The patent addresses a
`
`well-known problem with such circuits: “manufacturing-dependent fluctuations of the parameters
`
`of the thin film transistors” affect the amount of current provided to each OLED. Id. These
`
`differences may cause OLEDs to emit different amounts of light. Id.
`
`Prior-art solutions used feedback to compensate for differences in drive transistors but used
`
`at least four transistors in the drive circuit, and/or drive circuit elements on both sides of the diode,
`
`making manufacturing difficult. Id. at 2:22–31, 2:45–53. The ’891 patent solves the problem by
`
`disclosing a novel drive circuit that requires “only three thin film transistors” and a “current
`
`
`2 For further technology background see Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 21–47.
`
`
`
`2
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 6 of 35
`
`measuring and voltage regulating circuit” to compensate for any deviations. Id. at 2:9–31.
`
`This drive circuit “avoids the disadvantages of the prior art” and “requires less components
`
`and is simpler to manufacture than the known circuits.” Id. at 1:58–63. In particular, the OLED,
`
`due to its non-linear switching characteristics acts like a switch, so “no separate switch must be
`
`provided for the current.” 2:19–26. This structure allows all circuit parts to be located at one side
`
`of the diode, “so that a conventional layer sequence can be used during manufacture.” Id. Further,
`
`no contacts need to be guided through the organic material of the diode. Id. at 2:27–31.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 (“’068 Patent”)
`
`The ’068 patent concerns improved designs for transistor array substrates, containing an
`
`array of “driving transistors” and associated lines and interconnections necessary to their
`
`operation. Such arrays of driving transistors are needed, for example, to drive active matrix
`
`displays utilizing organic electroluminescent elements. ’068 patent at 1:24–36.
`
`In prior art arrays, the materials, dimension, and arrangement of the transistor components
`
`and the lines and interconnections meant that the arrays suffered from undesirably large resistances
`
`and voltage drops, impairing the operation of driving transistors and the quality of the displayed
`
`image. The ’068 patent teaches and claims improved designs for transistor arrays, with different
`
`arrangements of transistors, lines, interconnections, and electrodes, as well as with different
`
`dimensions or materials for such structures than those used in the prior art. ’068 patent, Fig. 5.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`The “claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`
`the claim.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Indeed,
`
`“the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of [] terms.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`3
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 7 of 35
`
`Thus, when conducting a claim construction inquiry, “district courts are not (and should
`
`not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l
`
`v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is because claim
`
`construction is “not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” US Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103
`
`F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a term is used in accordance with its plain meaning, the
`
`court should not replace it with different language. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669
`
`F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`To the contrary, there is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, unless [the accused infringer] can show the patentee expressly
`
`relinquished claim scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because
`
`that plain meaning “is the meaning that the term would have to a [POSITA] in question at the time
`
`of the invention,” construing claims often “involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14.
`
`“There are only two exceptions” in which claim terms are not given their full ordinary and
`
`customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,
`
`or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or
`
`lexicography, courts “do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments
`
`appearing only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification describes very specific
`
`embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment.” See JVW Enters., 424
`
`F.3d at 1335. Similarly, a statement during patent prosecution does not limit the claims unless the
`
`statement is a “clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.” Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1325.
`
`
`
`4
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 8 of 35
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’137 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“a gradation current having a current value” (’137 patent claims 10, 36)
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction3
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`a current having a current value and conveying
`information about a level
`
`an actual current (not voltage) with a value
`corresponding to a luminance level
`
`
`
`Defendants improperly seek to import a negative limitation (“not voltage”) into a term
`
`(“current”) that requires no construction. Because there is no basis in the specification or other
`
`intrinsic record for such a negative limitation, Defendants’ construction should be rejected. See
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Intl. Trade Comm’n., 566 F.3d 1049, 1059–60 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting
`
`construction of “monitoring the current to the load” that excluded “monitoring voltage”); Cohesive
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“it is not appropriate for the
`
`court to construe a claim solely to exclude the accused device”); Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 56–66.
`
`The parties do not dispute that a “gradation current” must be a current. They also do not
`
`appear to dispute what the phrase “having a current value” means. Solas proposes that this portion
`
`of the term be left without any construction beyond its plain meaning. Defendants’ proposal, on
`
`the other hand, effectively replaces it with the phrase “with a value.” Since Defendants do not
`
`appear to be suggesting that this “value” can be something other than a “current value,” this change
`
`does not appear to have any substantive effect. This replacement of the patentee’s chosen phrase
`
`is neither supported by the intrinsic record nor helpful to the finder of fact.
`
`Solas’s proposal explains that the gradation current “convey[s] information about a level.”
`
`This matches the purpose of the gradation current in the larger claim element: “a gradation current
`
`having a current value for allowing the optical element to perform a light emitting operation at a
`
`
`3 Solas proposed that “gradation current” means “current conveying information about a level”
`(Joint Chart at 2), which is equivalent to this proposal for the longer term.
`
`
`
`5
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 9 of 35
`
`luminance corresponding to a luminance gradation of display data.” ’137 patent at 58:5–8, 62:55–
`
`59. Defendants’ proposal instead says that the gradation current “correspond[s] to a luminance
`
`level.” This is at best duplicative of the claim language “corresponding to a luminance gradation”
`
`and of the parties agreed construction for “luminance gradient” of “light emitting level.” Solas’s
`
`language actually explains what the “gradation current” is, rather than parroting other claim
`
`limitations, and should be adopted. Flasck Decl. ¶
`
`The central difference between the proposals is that Defendants replace the word “current”
`
`with “actual current (not voltage).” Notably, Defendants do not attempt to explain or define what
`
`a current is. They simply ask the Court to instruct the jury that “current” really, really means
`
`current and cannot include an inextricably intertwined property, “voltage.” Flasck Decl. ¶ 59,
`
`Background. Nothing in the intrinsic record distinguishes “actual” current from any other kind of
`
`current, and so it is unclear how the finder of fact is supposed to distinguish the “actual” currents
`
`from all of the other currents in the world that do not live up to that label.
`
`Defendants’ negative limitation “(not voltage)” seems clearer, but nothing in the intrinsic
`
`record supports excluding embodiments that otherwise satisfy the “gradation current” limitations,
`
`simply because those embodiments also involve a voltage. Indeed, adopting Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction would invite non-infringement arguments that also improperly exclude embodiments.
`
`For instance, Fig. 9 (portion) shows an embodiment while the “gradation current Idata” is
`
`flowing. Each of elements 182, 183, and Tr12 act as switches (’137 patent at 12:52, 22:7–8) and
`
`is “on,” directly connecting the “gradation signal generation unit” 130 via “drive line” DL to
`
`contact point N12 within the “drive circuit” DC. Further, the specification teaches that “the
`
`gradation current Idata is drawn via the data line DL, whereby a voltage . . . is applied to the side
`
`of the source terminal (the contact point N12 . . . .” Id. at 22:20:25. Thus, when the gradation
`
`
`
`6
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 10 of 35
`
`current flows, the gradation signal generation unit in this preferred embodiment supplies both a
`
`current and a voltage to the display pixel through the data line.
`
`
`
`Claim 10 requires that the gradation signal generation circuit “generates a gradation
`
`
`
`current” and “supplies the gradation current.” ’137 patent at 58:5–6, 10–11. Under Defendants’
`
`proposal, the gradation signal generation circuit would need to generate and supply a “current (not
`
`voltage).” This improperly excludes the “gradation signal generation unit” of the preferred
`
`embodiments that generates and supplies both current and voltage. Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 63–65.
`
`Defendants’ proposal risks excluding preferred embodiments in other ways. The same
`
`preferred embodiment in Fig. 9 can also operate in a “Non-Light Emitting Operation” phase where
`
`it also “suppl[ies] a non-light emitting display voltage Vzero.” ’137 patent at 25:55, 27:3–15. To
`
`
`
`7
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 11 of 35
`
`the extent Defendants’ proposal prohibits the gradation signal generation circuit from ever
`
`supplying a voltage, this operation of Fig. 9 and preferred embodiment is excluded as well.
`
`Indeed, the purpose of the gradation current in the preferred embodiments is to provide an
`
`appropriate “gradation voltage” that is applied to the gate of the drive transistor and directly
`
`controls the light emitted by the pixel. ’137 patent at 2:49–52, 11:4–13. In the preferred
`
`embodiment, the gradation current supplies the electric charges to charge a capacitor with “the
`
`voltage component Vdata appropriately corresponding to the gradation signal (display data).” Id.
`
`at 22:37–54. The patent describes this latter process as “a current/voltage conversion function.”
`
`Id. at 24:38–39. And the gradation current itself was initially generated by converting a digital
`
`signal to an analog voltage and then applying a “voltage-current converter.” Id. at 10:60–11:3.
`
`These teachings confirm that the “gradation current” of the preferred embodiments is
`
`generated by converting a voltage, is delivered together with a voltage, and exists to create a
`
`gradation voltage signal in the display pixel. Given this intimate relationship between the gradation
`
`current and related voltages in the preferred embodiments, Defendants’ proposal will—at best—
`
`confuse the jury. At worst, it invites reversible error by excluding several preferred embodiments.
`
`B.
`
`“gradation signal” (’137 patent claims 10, 15, 36, 37, 39 )
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`signal conveying information about a level
`
`a gradation current with a current value sent
`to a pixel to set a luminance gradation
`
`
`
`Solas’s proposal properly explains the plain meaning of this term, in the context of the
`
`patent and claims in which is appears. The claim explains that the gradation signal “correspond[s]
`
`to the luminance gradation of the display data” ’137 patent at 58:9–10. And the parties agree that
`
`“luminance gradation” means “light emitting level.” Solas’s construction helps the fact-finder
`
`understand “gradation,” which might otherwise be an unfamiliar term. Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 63–73.
`
`
`
`8
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 12 of 35
`
`Defendants’ proposal is unhelpful at best. It incorporates by paraphrase requirements that
`
`appear elsewhere in the claims such as the requirement that the “gradation current” be “supplie[d]
`
`. . . to the display pixel” or that it be related to the “luminance gradation.” ’137 patent at 58:9–12.
`
`This is unnecessary and confusing. It is also wrong. It improperly adds the requirement that the
`
`“gradation signal” must be a “gradation current” and have a “current value.” That contradicts the
`
`patent specification and excludes embodiments. Such constructions are “rarely, if ever, correct.”
`
`SanDisk Corp., 415 F.3d at 1285–86.
`
`Although the claims require generating and/or supplying “a gradation current . . . as a
`
`gradation signal.” (’137 patent 58:5–12, 62:55–60), that does not mean that a “gradation signal”
`
`as used in the ’137 patent must be a gradation current. If anything, this claim language suggests
`
`the opposite, because if a “gradation signal” is necessarily a “gradation current,” there would be
`
`no reason to use both terms in the same claims.
`
`Directly contradicting Defendants’ proposal, the specification provides examples of
`
`“gradation signals” that are voltages—and does so repeatedly. This is strong evidence that the term
`
`“gradation signal” is not limited to currents. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (“the specification . . . is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term”
`
`(quotations omitted)). For example, Fig. of the patent has the label “gradation signal (gradation
`
`current / non-light emitting display voltage).” The specification has about one dozen other
`
`references to the “non-light emitting display voltage” as a “gradation signal.” See ’137 patent at
`
`4:31–32, 5:38–39, 7:55–56, 10:47–52, 12:11–12, 13:2–4, 26:12–14, 29:57–58, 30:19–20, 31:29–
`
`30, 34:54–55, 36:23–25, 39:55–57, 46:25–26, 48:27–28, 51:25–26. See Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 72–73.
`
`
`
`9
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 13 of 35
`
`C.
`
`“generates, as the gradation signal, a non-light emitting display voltage having a
`predetermined voltage value” (’137 patent claim 15) “a non-light emitting
`display voltage having a predetermined voltage value for allowing the optical
`element to perform a non-light emitting operation is generated as the gradation
`signal (’137 patent claim 39)
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Not indefinite
`
`indefinite
`
`Under controlling law, a claim is only indefinite if Defendants can prove by clear and
`
`convincing evidence, that the claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution
`
`history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`
`invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 898–899 (2014).
`
`Defendants’ fall far short of that burden here. In their invalidity contentions and claim
`
`construction exchanges, Defendants did not include one word articulating why they believe these
`
`dependent claim terms are clearly and convincingly indefinite. After several demands by Solas,
`
`Defendants finally stated over in call that these claims were indefinite because they were in tension
`
`with the independent claims from which they depend, with no additional detail. Defendants are
`
`incorrect and the term is not indefinite to a POSITA. See Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 74–81.
`
`Though Defendants have been improperly reserved in explaining their position, it appears
`
`they rest on the false premise put forward in their proposal regarding “gradation signal.” That is,
`
`in Defendants’ view, because the “gradation signal” must be a “gradation current” in the
`
`independent claims, then it cannot be a “non-light emitting display voltage” in the dependent
`
`claims. To the contrary, the term “signal” is generally understood to cover “any electrical quantity,
`
`such as voltage, current or frequency, that can be used to transit information.” MS Dict.
`
`Defendants’ contention has several fatal flaws. First, it contradicts the clear teachings of
`
`the patent specification. In those teachings, the specification makes clear that the “gradation signal
`
`
`
`10
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 14 of 35
`
`generation circuit can generate a “gradation current” and a “non-light emitting display voltage.”
`
`Indeed, Fig. 1 (portion) makes this much clear visually:
`
`
`
`Adding to this obvious point made by Fig. 1, the specification about a dozen times makes
`
`clear that the “gradation signal generation circuit” provides signals—and that those signals convey
`
`the “gradation current” for a “light-emitting operation” and a voltage for a “non-light emitting
`
`operation.” This is confirmed by the “Summary of the Invention” section alone (id. at 7:41–59):
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 15 of 35
`
`The detailed description reiterates this point and elaborate on it in various embodiments. See id. at
`
`28:16–33. And Fig. 34 (portion) also illustrates the same concept, removing any doubt:
`
`
`
`On and on the specification goes. Indeed, as cited above, the specification has about one
`
`dozen other references to the “non-light emitting display voltage” as a “gradation signal.” Thus,
`
`any argument that the “gradation signal generation circuit” cannot issue signals that both provide
`
`a gradation current and provide a non-light emitting display voltage is plain wrong
`
`Second, any reasonable reading of the claims themselves proves there is no tension between
`
`the dependent and independent claims. Rather, the claims are fully consistent with all these
`
`intrinsic-record teachings. For example, independent claim 10 introduces the first aspect of the
`
`signals generated by the gradation circuit for a “light-emitting operation:”
`
`Perfectly consistent with the intrinsic record, dependent claim 15 then introduces the
`
`second aspect, for the “non-light emitting operation”:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 16 of 35
`
`
`
`Third, Defendants’ arguments also defy scientific principles underlying fundamental
`
`
`
`concepts in this patent. That is: any gradation signal would have a current component and some
`
`voltage value—and the two items are inextricably and mathematically intertwined. Flasck Dec. ¶
`
`80. Indeed, due to this relationship, in ideal circuits, if you have one value, you could solve for the
`
`other. Thus, there is no basis for Defendants false premise that current can give no indication of
`
`voltage and voltage should give no indication of current.
`
`In short, a POSITA would immediately and easily understand the scope of dependent 15
`
`and 39. They are not indefinite.
`
`D.
`
` “. . . through a data line . . . through the data line . . . through the data line””
`(’137 patent claims 10, 16)
`
`Solas’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. “a data line” means
`“one or more data lines.” The antecedent basis
`for “the data line” is “a data line.”
`
`the gradation current is supplied, the threshold
`voltage is detected, and the compensation
`voltage is applied through the same data line
`
`
`
`Defendants do not propose an actual construction for this term. Defendants’ “construction”
`
`is a statement of requirements that would not make sense when inserted into the claim. This is
`
`improper and confusing, and should be rejected for this reason alone.
`
`As to the term “though a data line,” Defendants agree that “through” and “data line” do not
`
`require construction by repeating them in their proposal. Indeed, these are common technical terms
`
`that would be readily understood by a POSITA. Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 82–86; McGraw-Hill (“data
`
`
`
`13
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1009
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 68 Filed 03/13/20 Page 17 of 35
`
`transmission line: [ELEC] A system of electrical conductors, such as a coaxial cable or pair of
`
`wires, used to send information from one place to another or one part of a system to another.”).
`
`Instead, the only substantive dispute is whether “a data line” is limited to “a single data line” (as
`
`Defendants imply) or whether it is “one or more data lines” (under Solas’s construction). Under
`
`basic patent law, as well as the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, Solas’s construction is correct.
`
`Claim 10 is open-ended and recites: “A display drive apparatus . . . comprising: a gradation
`
`signal generation circuit which . . . supplies the gradation current . . . through a data line . . . .”4 In
`
`these circumstances, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “a” means “one or more.”
`
`See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“This court has
`
`repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning
`
`of “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’ Unless the
`
`claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only
`
`in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article. Under this
`
`conventional rule, the claim limitation ‘a,’ without more, requires at least one.”).
`
`Here, the intrinsic record supports the conventional rule, and this is not a “rare
`
`circumstance” where the patentee clear