Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 36
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD., an Irish corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean corpora-
`tion; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a Korean cor-
`poration; and SONY CORPORATION, a Japa-
`nese corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00236-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .....................................................................................1
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Current and Voltage .................................................................................................2
`Thin Film Transistors ...............................................................................................3
`Circuit Diagrams and Symbols ................................................................................4
`Using Voltage to Control Luminance ......................................................................4
`
`III.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,907,137 .............................................................................................5
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“a gradation current having a current value” (claims 10, 36) ..................................5
`“gradation signal” (claims 10, 15, 36, 37, 39) .........................................................9
`“generates, as the gradation signal, a non-light emitting display voltage
`having a predetermined voltage value” (claims 15, 39) ..........................................9
`“through a data line … through the data line … through the data line”
`(claims 10, 36) .......................................................................................................11
`“before” (claim 10) and “after” (claim 36) ............................................................12
`
`IV.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,432,891 ...........................................................................................14
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`“current measuring” (claims 1, 3) ..........................................................................14
`“a third thin film transistor which during driving its gate …” (claims 1, 3) ..........16
`“wherein all above mentioned elements of the driving circuit are located at
`a same side of said light emitting diode” (claim 3) ...............................................19
`
`V.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,573,068 ...........................................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`“formed on said plurality of supply lines along said plurality of supply
`lines” (claim 1) / “connected to said plurality of supply lines along said
`plurality of supply lines” (claim 13) ......................................................................21
`“patterned together” (claims 1 and 13) ..................................................................24
`“signal lines” (claims 1 and 13) .............................................................................27
`“feed interconnections” (claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 17) .................................................28
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`3Com Corp. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`473 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................................18
`
`In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`856 F.3d 902 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom. Affinity Labs of Texas,
`LLC v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1692 (2018) ................................................................................17, 18
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................30
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................16
`
`CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................6, 15, 27, 28
`
`Cave Consulting Grp., LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc.,
`725 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................8
`
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................8, 16
`
`Credle v. Bond,
`25 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................17
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................10
`
`LBS Innovations, LLC v. BP Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-00407-JRG, 2014 WL 61050 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2014) .....................................12
`
`Mangosoft Intellectual Prop. v. Skype Techs. SA,
`No. 2:06-CV-390, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62281 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2008) ..........................8
`
`Merrill v. Yeomans,
`94 U.S. 568 (1876) .....................................................................................................................1
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................10
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innov. Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`ii
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)........................................................................ passim
`
`Plano Encryption Techs., LLC v. Alkami, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-1032-JRG, 2017 WL 3654122 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2017)................................12
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................10
`
`RFID Tracker, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`342 F. App’x 628 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................8
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................18
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`794 F. App’x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................6
`
`Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................20, 26
`
`Tico, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................12
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................8
`
`Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States,
`714 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................30
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................19
`
`In re Varma,
`816 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. Cellco P’ship,
`757 F. App’x 954 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................................29
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................5
`
`Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile, Inc.,
`771 F. App’x 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................29
`
`Wis. Alumni Research Found. v. Apple Inc.,
`905 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`“As the Supreme Court has stated, ‘[i]t seems to us that nothing can be more just or fair,
`
`both to the patentee and the public, than that the former should understand, and correctly describe,
`
`just what he has invented, and for what he claims a patent.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 573-74 (1876)).
`
`Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and Sony Corporation (collectively, “De-
`
`fendants”) respectfully ask the Court to apply this fundamental principle of patent law and hold
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED, Ltd. to the words the original patentees used to claim their inventions and
`
`to convince the Patent Office to issue the patents-in-suit.
`
`As shown below, Solas turns this core tenet on its ear and refuses to be bound by the un-
`
`ambiguous text of its patents, or even by conventional principles of physics or electrical engineer-
`
`ing. It eschews well-established meanings of fundamental terms like “current” and “voltage” and
`
`conflates them in an effort to broaden its claims. Similarly, Solas refuses to be bound by conven-
`
`tional uses of the English language. Solas proposes labored meanings of simple words like “be-
`
`fore,” “after,” “together,” and “along,” often relying on the trope that some so-called plain and
`
`ordinary meaning applies, to try to expand these terms to suit its infringement theories. By con-
`
`trast, in discerning the meanings of the claim terms, Defendants have looked to the claims, the
`
`specifications, and the file histories for guidance as the law requires, and have provided the Court
`
`with context in the declaration of Douglas R. Holberg, Ph.D., a seasoned industry veteran, profes-
`
`sor, inventor, and author. As a result, Defendants’ proposed constructions “stay[] true to the claim
`
`language and most naturally align[] with the patent’s description of the invention,” and so are “in
`
`the end, the correct construction[s].” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`Solas did not invent the technologies described in its patents, which pertain to flat panel
`
`
`
`1
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`displays. Rather, two of the three patents were awarded to Japanese inventors from Casio who
`
`filed them first in Japan in 2004. The third was awarded to a German inventor at the University
`
`of Stuttgart who first filed in Germany in 2002. Casio and the University apparently saw no need
`
`to hold onto these patents. Solas acquired them, and now asserts them against Defendants’ mod-
`
`ern-day, organic light-emitting diode displays.
`
`The patents relate to displays in which each pixel has an organic light emitting diode
`
`(OLED or OEL). A pixel includes an OLED and a “drive circuit” that is used to control the amount
`
`of light emitted by that specific OLED. In such a display, there is an array of (often millions) of
`
`such pixels arranged in columns and rows. The “luminance” or intensity of light emitted by each
`
`pixel depends on the current driving each OLED. By controlling how much current is supplied to
`
`each OLED, the drive circuit can control the level of luminance. The patents in this case pertain
`
`generally to how drive circuits for OLEDs work. Below, we discuss several physics and electrical
`
`concepts that help inform an understanding of the patents-in-suit and the claims to be construed.
`
`A.
`
`Current and Voltage
`
`Current and voltage are distinct but related concepts. Ex. 11 (Holberg) ¶¶ 26-29. Current
`
`refers to the flow of electric charge.2 Voltage refers to the amount of potential energy it takes to
`
`move charge between two points.3 Voltage can be used synonymously with “potential,” “potential
`
`difference,” or “electromotive force.”4 To use a common analogy, one can think of electricity in
`
`a circuit like water in a pipe. Current is like the rate at which the water flows, and voltage is like
`
`
`1 All citations to “Ex.” refer to exhibits to the supporting Declaration of Blake R. Davis.
`2 Holberg ¶ 26 (citing Ex. 2 (IEEE 100) (2000) at 257; Ex. 3 (Hargrave’s Communications Dic-
`tionary) (2001) at 131.
`3 Id. ¶ 26 (citing Ex. 2 at 1260; Ex. 3 at 572).
`4 Id. ¶ 26 (citing Ex. 2 at 1260 (“voltage is synonymous with potential difference”); Ex. 4 (Mi-
`crosoft Computer Dictionary) (1997) at 502 (“voltage n. see electromotive force.”), 172 (“electro-
`motive force … also called potential, voltage”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`the water pressure that forces the water through the pipe. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. While current and voltage
`
`are mathematically related, they are distinct phenomena and can be used to serve different func-
`
`tions. Id. ¶¶ 29, 32.
`
`B.
`
`Thin Film Transistors
`
`Thin film transistors, or TFTs, are key components of
`
`OLED drive circuits. A TFT has three electrodes: a “gate,” a
`
`“drain,” and a “source;” and a “channel” between the drain and
`
`source. The ’068 patent depicts a TFT, as shown here and anno-
`
`tated. ’068 patent at Fig. 2 (cropped, annotated); see also Holberg
`
`¶ 30. The gate electrode controls the flow of current through the
`
`channel. Id. ¶ 31. When the voltage between the gate and source (the “gate-source voltage” or
`
`“gate voltage”) is below a certain “threshold voltage,” no current flows through the channel. Id.
`
`When the voltage increases above the threshold voltage, the channel becomes conductive (i.e., the
`
`transistor “turns on” and the gate is “driven”), allowing current to flow.5 Generally, the higher the
`
`gate voltage, the greater the current that flows through the channel. Thus, the gate is often referred
`
`to as a control electrode, and the drain and source as current-conducting electrodes.
`
`By applying different levels, or gradations, of voltages above the threshold voltage to the
`
`gate, a TFT can control the current that flows through it. Id. ¶ 33. A TFT also can be used as a
`
`switch that either blocks current from flowing or allows it to flow. Id. In keeping with the water-
`
`in-pipes analogy, applying voltage to the gate of a TFT is like turning a valve on a pipe that can
`
`shut the flow of water on or off or control the rate at which the water flows. Id.
`
`
`5 Id. ¶ 31. The ability of the material from which TFTs are made to conduct electricity in some
`situations, but not in others, is why they are commonly referred to as “semiconductors.” Silicon
`is a classic example of a semiconductor. Id. ¶ 30.
`
`
`
`3
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Circuit Diagrams and Symbols
`
`Engineers depict circuits in diagrams using conventional symbols. Id. ¶ 34. For example,
`
`TFTs are typically shown using the symbol above, and conductive lines through which electricity
`
`flows are typically represented by solid lines. Id. The patents reflect such conventions in their
`
`figures. Figure 36 of the ’137 patent, shown here, is an example. In relevant part, it depicts an
`
`admitted prior art “display pixel” (EMp) that has two TFTs (Tr111 and Tr112), an organic light
`
`emitting diode (OEL), conductive lines be-
`
`tween these and other elements (e.g., DLp,
`
`Vdd), and other common components like a
`
`capacitor (Cp) and a ground potential
`
`(Vgnd). ’137 patent at Fig. 36 (annotated);
`
`id. at 1:59-3:5; see also Holberg ¶¶ 34-36.
`
`D.
`
`Using Voltage to Control Luminance
`
`Voltage can be used to control luminance. Holberg ¶ 37. In the circuit shown above, Tr112
`
`is the driving transistor through which current flows to the OEL, and another transistor Tr111 acts
`
`as a switch to control the gate voltage of Tr112. ’137 patent, 2:1-10. When Tr111 is turned on, it
`
`provides a “gradation voltage VPix” from the “data line (signal line) DLp,” which voltage has a
`
`“value corresponding to display data” to the gate of the driving transistor. Id. at 2:34-41.6 The
`
`drive transistor allows current to flow from the “supply line” Vdd to illuminate the OEL, according
`
`to the value of the voltage at the gate. ’137 patent at 2:46-49. “[C]onsequently, the organic EL
`
`element OEL operates to emit light with a luminance gradation [i.e., a grade of light emission
`
`intensity] corresponding to the display data (the gradation voltage Vpix).” Id. at 2:49-52.
`
`
`6 All emphasis in quotes has been added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`4
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,907,137
`
`The ’137 patent is directed to a current-programmed OLED display. In the claimed drive
`
`circuits, “a gradation current having a current value … corresponding to display data” flows “via
`
`a data line DL toward a drive circuit DC provided on a display pixel PX.” Id. at 20:27-53. This
`
`contrasts with “conventional” prior art “voltage programmed pixels,” which use a voltage value to
`
`control the luminance of the pixel. See id. at 2:64-3:5, Fig. 36 (depicting prior art).
`
`A.
`
` “a gradation current having a current value” (claims 10, 36)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`An actual current (not voltage) with a value
`corresponding to a luminance level.
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`“Gradation current” means “current conveying
`information about a level.”
`
`Defendants’ construction of this term will make clear to the jury that “a gradation current
`
`having a current value” means what it says: an actual current, not a voltage. Solas’s construction,
`
`in contrast, would create needless ambiguity. Worse, in rejecting Defendants’ construction, Solas
`
`refuses to accept the basic principle of physics that current is “not voltage.” Its reason is obvious:
`
`Defendants’ products use voltage-driven drive circuits like the prior art, not current-driven drive
`
`circuits. Whatever Solas may mean by its proposed construction, it appears ready to try to im-
`
`properly read the claimed “gradation current” onto a “voltage” supplied by Defendants’ products.
`
`Claim construction starts with the language of the claim itself, which supports Defendants’
`
`construction. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, (Fed. Cir. 1996); Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1314. The claim term itself uses the word “current” twice, not “voltage,” and requires
`
`the “current value” to correspond to a “luminance gradation of the display data.” ’137 patent at
`
`58:5-12, 62:55-64. This contrasts with other limitations using “voltage” for different functions
`
`than those performed by the gradation current. For example, claim 10 requires multiple circuits,
`
`
`
`5
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`some of which generate current (e.g., a gradation signal generation circuit) and others which gen-
`
`erate voltage (e.g., a compensation voltage application circuit).7 When a patentee uses different
`
`terms in this way, it is “presume[d] that those two terms have different meanings.” SIPCO, LLC
`
`v. Emerson Elec. Co., 794 F. App’x 946, *3 (Fed. Cir. 2019); CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich
`
`Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Next, the specification is often the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed [claim]
`
`term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 13121. Here, the specification explains that the “drive control opera-
`
`tion in the display drive apparatus” includes “writing a gradation signal (a gradation current
`
`having a predetermined current value) corresponding to display data, and allowing the organic EL
`
`element OEL to perform a light emitting operation with a desired luminance gradation correspond-
`
`ing to the gradation signal.” ’137 patent at 13:63-67; see also id. at 10:51-55. Defendants’ con-
`
`struction expressly reflects this central theme of using a current corresponding to a luminance
`
`gradation: “an actual current (not voltage) with a value corresponding to a luminance level.”
`
`The specification further clarifies the difference between a “gradation voltage” and a “gra-
`
`dation current,” recognizing them as different electrical phenomena, not interchangeable syno-
`
`nyms as Solas would have it. For example, the specification teaches that a “gradation voltage”
`
`was used in prior art voltage-programmed pixels as a “voltage value corresponding to display data
`
`… and applied to the data line” and the OLED “operates to emit light with a luminance gradation
`
`corresponding to display data (the gradation voltage Vpix).” Id. at 2:34-41, 2:49-52, 3:6-14, 3:36-
`
`41, Fig. 36; see also id. at 14:63-67, 15:67-16:5, 20:29-36, 22:4-14, 22:19-24, 22:25-32, 24:2-10,
`
`
`7 See also, e.g., ’137 patent at claims 1-3, 5-22, 24, 27-34, 36-39 (“gradation current,” “current
`value,” “current control type optical element,” “current path,” “current flow,” “driving current,”
`“threshold voltage,” “compensation voltage,” “voltage component,” “detecting voltage,” “poten-
`tial difference,” “supply voltage”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`24:30-37, 28:49-60, 38:10-19, 38:53-58, 56:13-17, Figs. 7, 8, 9 (discussing patent’s use of a “gra-
`
`dation current”). The claims, however, are explicitly limited to a “gradation current having a
`
`current value” to distinguish the claimed inventions from the prior art and its alleged shortcom-
`
`ings. Id. at claims 10, 36; see also id. at 3:15-41 (shortcomings of voltage gradation). In every
`
`embodiment described in the ’137 patent, the drive circuitry supplies a gradation current, not a
`
`gradation voltage. See, e.g., id. at 21:62-23:14; Holberg ¶¶ 46-49.
`
`Further, “[i]n addition to consulting the specification, we have held that a court ‘should
`
`also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if it is in evidence.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations omitted). The file history eliminates any possible doubt that the applicants limited the
`
`claims to providing a current, and not a voltage. Initially, they tried to broadly claim “gradation
`
`signals,” without specifying voltage or current. But they were forced to narrow their claims to
`
`cover only “a gradation current … as the gradation signal” to overcome prior art.
`
`
`
`Ex. 5 at 2. The applicants argued that a prior art reference, Ono (Ex. 6), did not anticipate the
`
`claims because it “discloses applying a voltage by addition of a data voltage Vd and the threshold
`
`voltage Vth to the data line 7,” and therefore “Ono et al does not disclose generating and supplying
`
`a gradation current as a gradation signal.”8 Ex. 7 at 32 This unequivocal disavowal of claim
`
`
`8 This distinction between gradation voltage drive circuits and gradation current drive circuits was
`well known in the art. Holberg ¶¶ 52-53(describing prior art references).
`
`
`
`7
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`scope supports construing “gradation current” to make clear that it is “not a voltage.”
`
`Solas’s construction finds no such support in the intrinsic record. To the extent Solas may
`
`try to use it to allege infringement by a voltage signal, that should be foreclosed now in claim
`
`construction. And, while the intrinsic record consistently describes the claimed “gradation cur-
`
`rent” as having a value that corresponds to a luminance gradation specifically, Solas would im-
`
`properly broaden the term to “convey” arbitrary “information” about any undefined “level.”
`
`Finally, in meeting and conferring with Defendants, Solas argued that construing this term
`
`in part as “not voltage” is improper for using a “negative construction.” Not so. Constructions
`
`making clear what is not included in a claim, to head off future disputes, are wholly appropriate.
`
`See, e.g., Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (construing term to have negative “attack-free” limitation where “nothing in the specifica-
`
`tion describes any embodiment which uses attack data to build the model”); RFID Tracker, Ltd. v.
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 342 F. App’x 628, 630 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (statements in specification and
`
`prosecution history supported construction limiting term to “not a transmitter”); Cave Consulting
`
`Grp., LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc., 725 F. App’x 988, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (negative limitation sup-
`
`ported by specification which limited method to one technique “as opposed to another used in prior
`
`art methods”); Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1376-79 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (affirming construction with negative limitation excluding features in disclaimed prior art);
`
`Mangosoft Intellectual Prop. v. Skype Techs. SA, No. 2:06-CV-390, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62281,
`
`at *25 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2008) (“The court concludes that the term ‘migrate’ does not encompass
`
`replication or copying. Rather, it requires a change of the location of a directory part.”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“gradation signal” (claims 10, 15, 36, 37, 39)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`A gradation current with a current value sent to
`a pixel to set a luminance gradation
`
`Signal conveying information about a level
`
`This claim term is closely tied to “gradation current,” discussed above, with the added
`
`requirement that the gradation current is being used as a “signal.” Defendants’ construction applies
`
`the proper meaning of “gradation current,” while making clear that that current serves as a “signal”
`
`because it is sent to a pixel to set a luminance gradation. This construction comes straight from
`
`the unambiguous claim language—see ’137 patent at claims 10 and 36 (the “gradation current” is
`
`“supplie[d] … to the display pixel,” and “allow[s] the optical element to perform a light emitting
`
`operation at a luminance corresponding to a luminance gradation of the display data.”)—and
`
`comports with the specification and file history for the same reasons discussed above with respect
`
`to the gradation current. Supra at Section III.A; see also ’137 patent at 10:52-55, 13:63-67, 15:67-
`
`16:5, 24:2-17, 24:22-48, 28:49-60, 38:10-19. Solas, by contrast, ignores the claim language that
`
`makes clear that only the “gradation current having a current value” is “generated … as a grada-
`
`tion signal,” ’137 patent at claims 10 and 36, and improperly seeks to broaden the claims such that
`
`the “gradation signal” could be any “signal” conveying information about any “level.” This is
`
`unsupported by the record and should be rejected for the reasons set forth above.
`
`C.
`
`“generates, as the gradation signal, a non-light emitting display voltage
`having a predetermined voltage value” / “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”
`(claims 15, 39)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Indefinite.
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Not indefinite.
`
`The dispute here rises and falls with the construction of “gradation signal.” When “grada-
`
`tion signal” in independent claims 10 and 36 is correctly construed as a “gradation current” (and
`
`
`
`9
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`not voltage), it becomes clear that claims 15 and 39—which would apply a voltage as “the grada-
`
`tion signal” of independent claims 10 and 36—makes no sense and cannot be reasonably under-
`
`stood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S.
`
`898, 898–99 (2014).
`
`This incongruity in the claims comes from the amendment discussed above, in which the
`
`applicants abandoned their effort to claim any “signal” of any type, and narrowed the claims to
`
`cover only a gradation current as the gradation signal. Supra at Section III.A. What the applicants
`
`apparently forgot to do, however, is ensure that this amendment carried over to any dependent
`
`claims referring back to the generic “gradation signal” they originally claimed. More specifically,
`
`dependent claims 15 and 39 refer back to “the gradation signal” recited in the independent claims9
`
`(which was amended to mean a current), but then purport to narrow them to cover only a “voltage”
`
`as the gradation signal. While this narrowing limitation in the dependent claims may have made
`
`sense when the original independent claims still recited a gradation signal of any kind, it cannot
`
`be harmonized with the amended claims which require only a current gradation signal. In sum,
`
`because the applicants chose to limit “gradation signal” to mean current and not voltage, the de-
`
`pendent claims continuing to refer to voltage are nonsensical and indefinite. Process Control
`
`Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding where “claims are
`
`susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation and that interpretation results in a nonsensical
`
`construction of the claim as a whole, the claim must be invalidated”).
`
`
`9 The “antecedent basis” rule compels that the dependent claims’ use of “the gradation signal”
`must refer back to “a gradation signal” in the independent claims. Indeed, these terms would lack
`a proper antecedent basis and be indefinite unless construed in this manner. See Halliburton En-
`ergy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining a claim could be
`indefinite “if a term does not have proper antecedent basis where such basis is not otherwise pre-
`sent by implication or the meaning is not readily ascertainable”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/13/20 Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`D.
`
`“through a data line … through the data line … through the data line”
`(claims 10, 36)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`The gradation current is supplied, the threshold
`voltage is detected, and the compensation
`voltage is applied through the same data line.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. “A data line”
`means “one or more data
`lines.” The
`antecedent basis for “the data line” is “a data
`line.”
`
`Claims 10 and 36 of the ’137 patent recite the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“supplies the gradation current to the display pixel through a data line” / “supplying
`. . . a gradation current having a current value . . . as a gradation signal to the display
`pixel through the data line”:
`
`“detects a threshold voltage peculiar to the drive element of the display pixel
`through the data line” / “detecting a threshold voltage peculiar to the drive element
`through a data line”; and
`
`“applies the compensation voltage to the drive el