1
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`) Docket No. WA 19-CA-236 ADA
`SOLAS OLED, LTD.
` )
` ) Waco, Texas
`vs.
` )
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`)
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`)
`SONY CORPORATION
`) May 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`Ms. Andrea L. Fair
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`P.O. Box 1231
`Longview, Texas 75606
`Mr. Marc A. Fenster
`Mr. Reza Mirzaie
`Mr. Neil A. Rubin
`Mr. Philip X. Wang
`Russ, August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard,
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`Ms. Jennifer A.H. Doan
`Mr. Joshua R. Thane
`Haltom & Doan
`6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
`Texarkana, Texas 75503
`Mr. Joseph H. Lee
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, California 92626
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`) Docket No. WA 19-CA-236 ADA
`SOLAS OLED, LTD.
` )
` ) Waco, Texas
`vs.
` )
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`)
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`)
`SONY CORPORATION
`) May 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`Ms. Andrea L. Fair
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`P.O. Box 1231
`Longview, Texas 75606
`Mr. Marc A. Fenster
`Mr. Reza Mirzaie
`Mr. Neil A. Rubin
`Mr. Philip X. Wang
`Russ, August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard,
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`Ms. Jennifer A.H. Doan
`Mr. Joshua R. Thane
`Haltom & Doan
`6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
`Texarkana, Texas 75503
`Mr. Joseph H. Lee
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, California 92626
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 001
`
`
`
`Appearances Continued:
`For the Defendants:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`2
`
`Mr. Blake R. Davis
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Mr. Gabriel S. Gross
`Mr. Douglas E. Lumish
`Mr. Chris Schmoller
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Proceedings reported by computerized stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 002
`
`
`
`3
`
`THE COURT: Then, Suzanne, I guess you could call
`the case, please.
`THE CLERK: Certainly.
`Markman hearing in Civil Action 6:19-CV-236,
`styled, Solas OLED, Limited vs. LG Display Company, and
`others.
`
`THE COURT: I'm not hearing anything.
`THE CLERK: I apologize, you couldn't hear me
`call the case?
`THE COURT: I did hear you okay.
`THE CLERK: You did hear me?
`THE COURT: I did.
`THE CLERK: All right then. I'm out.
`THE COURT: Did you hear me ask for you all to
`announce?
`MS. DOAN: No. We did not hear that. We can
`make announcements.
`THE COURT: Okay. Please do.
`MS. FAIR: Good morning, your Honor.
`This is Andrea Fair on behalf of Solas, and I'm
`joined today by Mr. Reza Mirzaie, Mr. Marc Fenster, Mr.
`Neil Rubin, and Mr. Philip Wang. And we also have our
`client representative, Mr. Richard Tashijian, with us
`today. And we're ready to proceed.
`THE COURT: All right. Who will be speaking for
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:01:43
`
`09:01:44
`
`09:01:48
`
`09:01:49
`
`09:01:53
`
`09:01:59
`
`09:02:13
`
`09:02:17
`
`09:02:19
`
`09:02:20
`
`09:02:24
`
`09:02:25
`
`09:02:27
`
`09:02:44
`
`09:02:48
`
`09:02:52
`
`09:02:54
`
`09:02:55
`
`09:02:58
`
`09:02:59
`
`09:03:02
`
`09:03:06
`
`09:03:10
`
`09:03:13
`
`09:03:15
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 003
`
`
`
`4
`
`plaintiff?
`MS. FAIR: That will be Mr. Mirzaie. Go ahead,
`Reza. I'm sorry.
`MR. MIRZAIE: No. It's okay.
`Your Honor, this is Reza Mirzaie. I'll be
`speaking on behalf of plaintiff for the 137 patent. My
`colleague, Philip Wang, will be speaking on behalf of
`plaintiff on the 891. And my colleague, Neil Rubin, and
`Philip Wang will be splitting up the remaining patent, the
`068 patent.
`THE COURT: Okay. Lily, are you getting this?
`COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir.
`THE COURT: And for defendants.
`MS. DOAN: Good morning, your Honor.
`Jennifer Doan and Josh Thane for the LG
`Defendants and for Sony. And arguing today for LG and
`Sony will be Mr. Doug Lumish, Joseph Lee, Blake Davis, all
`from Latham Watkins. And also today, your Honor, Gabe
`Gross and Chris Schmoller are appearing for Latham
`Watkins, as well. And we're ready to proceed.
`THE COURT: Very nice.
`And I have -- I believe we got an e-mail from the
`plaintiff saying that they were okay with the Court's
`preliminary constructions. Let me hear from Mr. Mirzaie
`or Mr. Wang if that is incorrect.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:03:18
`
`09:03:19
`
`09:03:22
`
`09:03:23
`
`09:03:24
`
`09:03:27
`
`09:03:31
`
`09:03:34
`
`09:03:40
`
`09:03:43
`
`09:03:44
`
`09:03:44
`
`09:04:03
`
`09:04:05
`
`09:04:07
`
`09:04:09
`
`09:04:11
`
`09:04:20
`
`09:04:22
`
`09:04:26
`
`09:04:27
`
`09:04:30
`
`09:04:34
`
`09:04:39
`
`09:04:43
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 004
`
`
`
`5
`
`MR. MIRZAIE: This is Mr. Mirzaie.
`That is correct, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. And so -- and with respect to
`I'll ask any of the defense counsel, are there any of the
`claims -- Court's preliminary constructions that
`defendants find acceptable and do not intend to argue?
`MR. LUMISH: Your Honor, this is Doug Lumish for
`the defendants.
`I'll take that in two parts, if I may. There
`
`are --
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`MR. LUMISH: I think for most of the construction
`that you've proposed as tentatives, there are some
`suggested modifications that we would like to propose
`today. As far as terms we are not going to argue, we
`agreed with Solas that we won't argue the before-and-after
`term for the patterning on its own term, but we're going
`to submit those on the briefing, as opposed to submit to
`your Honor's tentative. We understand that that probably
`leads to the attentive. But instead of waiving our
`position, instead, we'll just submit that and not argue
`it, with your permission.
`THE COURT: Absolutely fine.
`MR. LUMISH: And I did want to mention, your
`Honor, we have a number of client representatives that are
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:04:48
`
`09:04:49
`
`09:04:50
`
`09:04:55
`
`09:05:00
`
`09:05:06
`
`09:05:11
`
`09:05:13
`
`09:05:14
`
`09:05:15
`
`09:05:16
`
`09:05:16
`
`09:05:19
`
`09:05:24
`
`09:05:27
`
`09:05:29
`
`09:05:34
`
`09:05:39
`
`09:05:41
`
`09:05:42
`
`09:05:46
`
`09:05:51
`
`09:05:52
`
`09:05:54
`
`09:05:54
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 005
`
`
`
`6
`
`either on the Zoom or on the phone. I'm not going to
`introduce them all in the interest of time, but I believe
`each of the defendants has several people on and listening
`intently. I just didn't want you to think we had missed
`it.
`
`THE COURT: In fact, let me establish, it was
`very nice for you to say because I try and I'll say at
`every one of these hearings -- this is my first video, but
`I think it's so critical that counsel have their clients
`appear because I think it's so important for them to hear
`the arguments made and to listen to how the Court
`proceeds. So I think that's a -- I'm glad you put that on
`the record. And for both sets of clients, I very much
`appreciate them taking the time to attend this this
`morning.
`So with that being said, with your permission,
`Mr. Lumish, who will take up a "gradation current having a
`current value"?
`MR. LUMISH: Me, your Honor. I'm going to argue
`all of the terms from the 137 patent.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. LUMISH: Mr. Davis will handle the 891 and
`Mr. Lee will handle the 068.
`THE COURT: Okay. And let me say on the record,
`for the claim term "a gradation current having a current
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:05:56
`
`09:06:00
`
`09:06:00
`
`09:06:03
`
`09:06:05
`
`09:06:06
`
`09:06:08
`
`09:06:13
`
`09:06:17
`
`09:06:22
`
`09:06:25
`
`09:06:29
`
`09:06:32
`
`09:06:37
`
`09:06:37
`
`09:06:39
`
`09:06:43
`
`09:06:48
`
`09:06:50
`
`09:06:52
`
`09:06:54
`
`09:06:55
`
`09:06:56
`
`09:06:58
`
`09:07:00
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 006
`
`
`
`7
`
`value," the Court has proposed a preliminary construction
`of a current, which conveys information about a level.
`And, Mr. Lumish, anything that you'd like to say
`in response to the Court's preliminary construction?
`MR. LUMISH: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
`I'm going to share my screen, if it's all right
`with the Court, so we can start to see our slides.
`THE COURT: Please.
`MR. LUMISH: And you can, of course, if you
`prefer to look at the hardcopies, you have those, as well.
`Hopefully everybody could see on the screen now the cover
`of our presentation. And just jumping -- let me jump
`right to the term, your Honor, though, you asked about
`this construction. Your tentative is on the left and what
`we have done is using sort of a traditional redline
`format, we have put what we would propose as the
`modifications to your constructions on the right.
`We do this still hoping that we can preserve and
`your Honor will understand that we think the constructions
`that we propose are the right ones and the ones best
`supported by the intrinsic record. But that if we could
`work with your constructions and see if there was some
`modifications that might, in our view, anyway, get them
`closer to that intrinsic evidence.
`And so, here, there's really two changes that we
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:07:05
`
`09:07:10
`
`09:07:15
`
`09:07:20
`
`09:07:23
`
`09:07:24
`
`09:07:26
`
`09:07:27
`
`09:07:32
`
`09:07:33
`
`09:07:35
`
`09:07:38
`
`09:07:41
`
`09:07:48
`
`09:07:51
`
`09:07:55
`
`09:07:57
`
`09:08:01
`
`09:08:05
`
`09:08:07
`
`09:08:11
`
`09:08:16
`
`09:08:18
`
`09:08:20
`
`09:08:22
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 007
`
`
`
`8
`
`would ask for -- or three, I guess. One is that the
`current be specifically recited to have a current value.
`And as I'll show you in a moment, that comes straight out
`of the claim language. And that the level in your
`tentative construction be -- specified to be a luminance
`level, not just any level of any kind. So that's the main
`proposed change we would make.
`And then, with your permission, your Honor, I
`will take a few minutes to just try to convince you to
`include in the construction, either in a footnote in the
`way you did with another term for -- in the order
`somewhere, even if it's not in the construction, something
`that captures that I think both parties have acknowledged
`that current and voltage are different things and that
`that's very important in this case.
`So if I may, I'll proceed down those lines. Let
`me start with these two issues. So here's why we would
`add "having a current value" and "a luminance level"
`specifically to your tentative, your Honor, and they come
`straight out of the claim language.
`When you look at claim 10, when you look at claim
`36, you see that they have the gradation signal generation
`circuit is the first limitation of claim 10. It generates
`a gradation current having a current value. It's not a
`gradation current on its own or in any nondescript way,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:08:26
`
`09:08:30
`
`09:08:34
`
`09:08:37
`
`09:08:39
`
`09:08:44
`
`09:08:48
`
`09:08:49
`
`09:08:50
`
`09:08:53
`
`09:08:56
`
`09:09:00
`
`09:09:02
`
`09:09:05
`
`09:09:09
`
`09:09:09
`
`09:09:15
`
`09:09:18
`
`09:09:21
`
`09:09:26
`
`09:09:27
`
`09:09:29
`
`09:09:34
`
`09:09:38
`
`09:09:41
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 008
`
`
`
`9
`
`but always expressly having a current value. That current
`value and gradation current allow the optical element --
`that's the OLED -- to perform what's called a
`light-emitting operation. In other words, it's going to
`light up. It's not going to be black. It's going to
`light up and it's gotta do that at a luminance that
`corresponds to a luminance gradation of the display data.
`So the two things we've asked your Honor to
`include into the tentative are the two things that I've
`underscored here on the screen. That it's a gradation
`current having a current value that sets the level and at
`that level is in particular one for setting the luminance
`level, what's called a luminance gradation in the 137
`patent. Again, straight out of the claims. The
`specification supports that over and over again.
`I'll just show you a couple of examples this
`morning so as to be efficient with your time. But here's
`column 10, line 45 through 55. I'm on slide 8 for the
`record. And you can see here, a discussion of the
`gradation current of the patent, and it refers to it as
`current Idata. And it says it has a predetermined current
`value. So that's the first addition we're asking you to
`put into that tentative. That current value allows the
`OLED again to perform the light-emitting operation and to
`do it with a predetermined luminance gradation. A
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:09:44
`
`09:09:48
`
`09:09:51
`
`09:09:55
`
`09:09:57
`
`09:10:00
`
`09:10:03
`
`09:10:07
`
`09:10:08
`
`09:10:11
`
`09:10:13
`
`09:10:17
`
`09:10:20
`
`09:10:24
`
`09:10:27
`
`09:10:29
`
`09:10:32
`
`09:10:35
`
`09:10:38
`
`09:10:43
`
`09:10:45
`
`09:10:49
`
`09:10:54
`
`09:10:59
`
`09:10:59
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 009
`
`
`
`10
`
`specific luminance level, as opposed to any level. So
`here, again, you see the two additions we're asking for
`straight out of the specification, straight out of the
`claim language.
`One more example of that, your Honor, is on
`column 13, lines 48 through 67. I could show you several
`of these. I don't think it's in dispute that there are a
`number of these things throughout the specification. The
`gradation signal is a gradation current having a current
`value that allows for the light-emitting operation and a
`desired luminance gradation.
`Your Honor, you're on mute. It looks like you
`may be trying to interject.
`THE COURT: No. I'm sorry. I was asking -- I
`was asking my clerk a question. I'm good.
`MR. LUMISH: I apologize. I wanted to make sure
`I wasn't speaking over you. Thank you.
`So that's really that argument, your Honor. I
`think it's quite simple, which is that the intrinsic
`record couldn't be more straight; that it's not any
`current, it's a current with a current value. It's not
`any level, it's a luminance level. So we would ask you to
`adjust your tentative construction to include those two
`principles straight out of the intrinsic record.
`The next --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:11:02
`
`09:11:04
`
`09:11:07
`
`09:11:09
`
`09:11:10
`
`09:11:13
`
`09:11:17
`
`09:11:19
`
`09:11:23
`
`09:11:26
`
`09:11:29
`
`09:11:33
`
`09:11:35
`
`09:11:37
`
`09:11:39
`
`09:11:42
`
`09:11:44
`
`09:11:46
`
`09:11:49
`
`09:11:52
`
`09:11:54
`
`09:11:56
`
`09:11:59
`
`09:12:02
`
`09:12:06
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 010
`
`
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from -- does it
`make -- Mr. Lumish, does it make more sense for you to do
`both that and gradation signal at the same time?
`MR. LUMISH: The arguments now collapse into the
`same one for me, your Honor. So in light of your
`tentative, our proposal for gradation signal is exactly
`the same, except I think it has the word "signal." So let
`me jump ahead to that. Let me just see what slide number
`that is. Forgive me for jumping here, but I'll just skip
`through to it.
`You can see your tentative on gradation signal on
`the screen now. Sorry about the jumping. So that's slide
`38. And we have essentially proposed the same additions.
`We left in the word "signal," as your Honor had it in the
`tentative, but we would like it to be a current signal. I
`don't think that ought to be controversial. And that the
`current signal have the current value from the claims, and
`that the level be the luminance level from the claims in
`the specification.
`I did want to talk about the not voltage, but it
`sounds like you'd like to hear from plaintiffs on these
`two issues. Is that correct, your Honor?
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from the
`plaintiff, please, with respect to -- what I don't have
`handy is the defendant's proposed change -- changes this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:12:06
`
`09:12:10
`
`09:12:13
`
`09:12:17
`
`09:12:20
`
`09:12:22
`
`09:12:25
`
`09:12:28
`
`09:12:32
`
`09:12:40
`
`09:12:41
`
`09:12:45
`
`09:12:47
`
`09:12:51
`
`09:12:55
`
`09:12:57
`
`09:13:00
`
`09:13:03
`
`09:13:06
`
`09:13:06
`
`09:13:09
`
`09:13:11
`
`09:13:19
`
`09:13:21
`
`09:13:31
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 011
`
`
`
`12
`
`morning. Could you -- Mr. Lumish, could you put yours
`back up? And I could hear from the plaintiff why they
`don't want those words added.
`MR. LUMISH: It should be up, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. If I could hear from counsel
`-- Mr. Mirzaie, are you handling this one?
`MR. MIRZAIE: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. MIRZAIE: Your Honor, if I may briefly show a
`slide deck, as well.
`THE COURT: Absolutely. As long as yours has the
`proposed modification on it that you want to discuss, that
`would be great. I just want to make sure I know what it
`is you're talking about.
`MR. MIRZAIE: And it does. And so, I think it
`might help you view the proposed modification while I
`discuss it. Let me share this. Your Honor, can you see
`my screen?
`THE COURT: I can see it.
`MR. MIRZAIE: Okay. Thank you.
`Your Honor, while we appreciate the change in the
`modification last night, it does not solve the biggest
`issue. So what you see here is actually the proposal from
`the defendant's brief that this court rightly rejected,
`and it has in there what we think is the biggest problem,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:13:38
`
`09:13:41
`
`09:13:43
`
`09:13:47
`
`09:13:48
`
`09:13:53
`
`09:13:59
`
`09:14:00
`
`09:14:01
`
`09:14:07
`
`09:14:08
`
`09:14:12
`
`09:14:14
`
`09:14:16
`
`09:14:18
`
`09:14:20
`
`09:14:23
`
`09:14:49
`
`09:14:54
`
`09:14:56
`
`09:14:57
`
`09:15:04
`
`09:15:08
`
`09:15:13
`
`09:15:17
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 012
`
`
`
`13
`
`the not voltage, as you see. This new slide shows the
`modified construction. And as my colleague, Doug, pointed
`out, there's three changes. The first two are the
`luminance level add-on and the value add-on, and there
`still is that awkward sentence at the end, "current is not
`voltage."
`So I'll take those in turn. On luminance level,
`our position is, your Honor, that the Court's construction
`is correct and that luminance level -- I believe my
`colleague stated this, that it's already in the claims.
`And the claims already, as my colleague showed, it already
`has the luminance term and it's referring to a luminance.
`So it's unnecessary to import it into the claim language
`again.
`
`But the other problem with that, your Honor --
`and let me just flip through the slides, apologies -- is
`that it actually distorts the claim, the way that my
`colleagues have introduced it. So this is the actual
`claim on the left, and this is what we believe is the
`defendants' modified construction on the right. And as
`you see on the left, the claim requires a gradation
`current having a current value for allowing the optical
`element to perform in its lighting-emitting operation, as
`we'll get into, I'm sure, later. On the right, it's a
`somewhat different construction that is a current having a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:15:20
`
`09:15:27
`
`09:15:32
`
`09:15:36
`
`09:15:44
`
`09:15:48
`
`09:15:49
`
`09:15:54
`
`09:15:56
`
`09:16:00
`
`09:16:04
`
`09:16:09
`
`09:16:14
`
`09:16:20
`
`09:16:21
`
`09:16:24
`
`09:16:32
`
`09:16:35
`
`09:16:39
`
`09:16:44
`
`09:16:50
`
`09:16:54
`
`09:16:59
`
`09:17:04
`
`09:17:07
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 013
`
`
`
`14
`
`current value which conveys information about a level.
`So they're requiring that the value convey
`information about a luminance level. And on the left in
`the claim, the value is for allowing the optical element
`to perform. Now, it is true that gradation, you know, I
`think the parties agree, the plain meaning of it is a
`level, and that is already in the Court's construction.
`But what -- at best, what the defendants' add-on of a
`luminance level does is repeat things, if we understand it
`correctly, that it's already in the claims that refer to
`luminance in this clause; but it looks like it qualifies
`it with a different part of the claim, namely, that the
`value must convey the information and not the current
`itself.
`
`On the term "value," frankly, we think the
`Court's construction, that second add-on, we think the
`Court's construction is perfectly fine. The "level" term
`in the Court's construction, we think, captures the claim
`language -- the intent of the claim fully. So as we
`stated, we will submit to the Court's construction. But
`if we add "value" -- you know, if the Court decides to add
`"value" but adds it in a way that mirrors the claim and
`doesn't move it to change the way it's qualified, we're
`okay with that, too.
`So if the Court would like to add that the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:17:12
`
`09:17:16
`
`09:17:19
`
`09:17:24
`
`09:17:27
`
`09:17:31
`
`09:17:36
`
`09:17:42
`
`09:17:44
`
`09:17:48
`
`09:17:52
`
`09:17:57
`
`09:18:00
`
`09:18:07
`
`09:18:07
`
`09:18:10
`
`09:18:14
`
`09:18:20
`
`09:18:25
`
`09:18:29
`
`09:18:31
`
`09:18:37
`
`09:18:40
`
`09:18:45
`
`09:18:47
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 014
`
`
`
`15
`
`gradation current has a current value for allowing the
`optical element to perform and make that clear, that's
`fine, too. What we think is not fine, again, is that --
`is the modification which distorts the claim into the
`current having a current value where apparently, according
`to defendants' new construction, the value contains and
`conveys the information about a luminance level.
`But I think the bigger issue is, your Honor, that
`this still has the -- what we think is the biggest risk to
`reversible error, which is that add-on at the end, the
`awkward add-on after the period. Current is not --
`THE COURT: I wouldn't spend a lot of time on
`
`that.
`
`MR. MIRZAIE: Okay. Well, then, I'll reserve my
`time and let my colleague respond to the two add-ons.
`THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lumish.
`MR. LUMISH: Thank you. If I may have the screen
`back, please.
`MR. MIRZAIE: So I have to exit.
`MR. LUMISH: You have to stop sharing screen.
`MR. MIRZAIE: Sorry about that.
`MR. LUMISH: So, your Honor, on the two
`additions, here's the claim language again, and it doesn't
`say the current sets a level. It just doesn't say that.
`It says the current having a current value. And it
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:18:52
`
`09:18:55
`
`09:18:59
`
`09:19:01
`
`09:19:06
`
`09:19:10
`
`09:19:13
`
`09:19:15
`
`09:19:19
`
`09:19:26
`
`09:19:30
`
`09:19:33
`
`09:19:35
`
`09:19:35
`
`09:19:38
`
`09:19:41
`
`09:19:47
`
`09:19:48
`
`09:19:52
`
`09:19:55
`
`09:20:07
`
`09:20:31
`
`09:20:33
`
`09:20:35
`
`09:20:39
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 015
`
`
`
`16
`
`doesn't say that the current value alone, all it does is
`perform a light-emitting operation. The language is very
`clear. It says the current having a current value as a
`unit. Both things together, they're inextricably bound.
`It is a current having a current level, as opposed to just
`somewhere in the current, allows the optical element to
`perform the operation, but doesn't stop there. It's
`performing the operation at a luminance corresponding to a
`luminance gradation of the display data.
`And so, these aren't additions to the claim
`language. This is the claim language. It says, quite
`simply, that the current having the current value sets
`that level together and that that level is a luminance
`level.
`
`And so, I showed you that exact same language in
`the specification. You can see here again at column 10,
`line 45 to 55, the same language. Not the current by
`itself and not any level and not only -- the value doesn't
`only perform a light-emitting operation. The data has a
`current value that performs the operation at a
`predetermined luminance gradation.
`So we think this addition is actually quite
`critical, given that it's straight out of the claim
`language. So you wouldn't want to read that claim
`language out.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:20:42
`
`09:20:46
`
`09:20:50
`
`09:20:52
`
`09:20:56
`
`09:20:59
`
`09:21:02
`
`09:21:05
`
`09:21:09
`
`09:21:11
`
`09:21:13
`
`09:21:16
`
`09:21:18
`
`09:21:22
`
`09:21:23
`
`09:21:27
`
`09:21:30
`
`09:21:34
`
`09:21:37
`
`09:21:41
`
`09:21:43
`
`09:21:45
`
`09:21:49
`
`09:21:52
`
`09:21:56
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 016
`
`
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: I'll be right back with you guys.
`MR. LUMISH: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. The Court is going to make
`permanent its preliminary constructions for those two
`claim terms. Therefore, the Court's final construction
`for the claim term "a gradation current having a current
`value" is, quote, a current, which conveys information
`about a level, close quote.
`With regard to the claim term "gradation signal,"
`the final construction will be "signal conveying
`information about a level." The Court finds that the
`suggestions made by the defendant would be redundant and
`are unnecessary.
`With regard to the next claim term, which is --
`begins with "generates as the gradation signal a
`non-light-emitting display voltage having a predetermined
`voltage value, and also, 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. The
`Court's preliminary construction is not indefinite.
`Mr. Lumish, are you handling this one?
`MR. LUMISH: I am, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
`MR. LUMISH: And I take it, you don't want to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:21:57
`
`09:22:00
`
`09:22:21
`
`09:22:23
`
`09:22:25
`
`09:22:30
`
`09:22:33
`
`09:22:38
`
`09:22:40
`
`09:22:44
`
`09:22:48
`
`09:22:52
`
`09:22:57
`
`09:22:58
`
`09:23:01
`
`09:23:07
`
`09:23:10
`
`09:23:15
`
`09:23:18
`
`09:23:24
`
`09:23:27
`
`09:23:29
`
`09:23:32
`
`09:23:33
`
`09:23:34
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 017
`
`
`
`18
`
`hear about the not voltage point, then I'll leave that to
`the briefing.
`So moving on to this issue, your Honor, we would
`make one little tweak to your construction. We obviously
`do think it is indefinite, and so, we'd ask you to find
`that and I'll show you why. And I think there's an issue
`that wasn't brought out too plainly in our briefing, which
`maybe will help shed some light on that here this morning,
`which is this light-emitting operation point. If you look
`at the claims, they, in every instance, require that the
`gradation current provide or allow for the provision of
`this light-emitting operation. You see it in claim 10,
`you see it in claim 36. This is slide 46 up on the
`screen.
`
`And so, in every instance, it's describing
`actually emitting light through the OLED, as opposed to
`going dark. And the requirement was added in the file
`history as an amendment. You can see all of these things
`that we're talking about here were actually added as an
`amendment. The original claims were broad enough to just
`cover any gradation signal of any kind. They were then
`reduced to what you see on the screen and what I showed
`you a moment ago, which is only gradation current, having
`a current value. Only for allowing the element to perform
`a light-emitting operation and always at that luminance
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:23:35
`
`09:23:38
`
`09:23:39
`
`09:23:43
`
`09:23:45
`
`09:23:49
`
`09:23:51
`
`09:23:54
`
`09:23:57
`
`09:24:00
`
`09:24:05
`
`09:24:10
`
`09:24:13
`
`09:24:16
`
`09:24:16
`
`09:24:19
`
`09:24:24
`
`09:24:35
`
`09:24:38
`
`09:24:41
`
`09:24:44
`
`09:24:46
`
`09:24:49
`
`09:24:53
`
`09:24:56
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 018
`
`
`
`19
`
`level that we talked about a few moments ago. So we see
`this as added to the claims.
`I'm going to jump back. Some of the slides that
`I think go to this are actually for the other term, I'm
`going to not argue that term to your Honor. But I did
`want to show you a couple of things, which is where
`voltage is used in this patent, because it's used in two
`ways. First of all, when you see a voltage signal, it's
`always used either at -- in the prior art where here, they
`talk about at column 2, lines 42 through 46, a gradation
`voltage, instead of that current gradation that we showed
`a few moments ago and that subject to your first two
`rulings.
`
`There was and the patent recognizes that the
`prior art used another approach. These gradation -- or,
`pardon me, voltage program pixels and they were known.
`Figure 36 is labelled right on its face as prior art, and
`it uses that voltage programming, that voltage V pix, it's
`called there, to send that signal to the OLED to tell it
`how much to light up. So we see that here at column 2,
`lines 42 through 46.
`Column 2, 34 to 41, same idea, a gradation
`voltage V pix having a voltage value corresponding to the
`display data. So again, in the prior art, we see this
`voltage. And I'll skip forward. The patent criticizes
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:25:00
`
`09:25:02
`
`09:25:04
`
`09:25:10
`
`09:25:14
`
`09:25:15
`
`09:25:17
`
`09:25:20
`
`09:25:23
`
`09:25:28
`
`09:25:32
`
`09:25:34
`
`09:25:38
`
`09:25:38
`
`09:25:42
`
`09:25:44
`
`09:25:49
`
`09:25:52
`
`09:25:56
`
`09:25:59
`
`09:26:02
`
`09:26:04
`
`09:26:09
`
`09:26:14
`
`09:26:17
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1017
`Page 019
`
`
`
`20
`
`that approach. It says that voltage-based signals have
`problems with them. The voltage may change over time, the
`voltage may fluctuate, and it becomes as they -- right
`here at the bottom of column 3, lines 15 through 30, that
`as a result, it would become difficult to stably realize a
`light-emitting operation for a long period with an
`appropriate luminance gradation corresponding to the
`display data.
`So voltage-driven signals have problems. That's
`what we learned from the specification. They state again
`here at column 3, lines 31 through 41, of the 137 patent
`that furthermore, jumping down, the current value largely
`varies for each display pixel, and the bottom line, being
`that an appropriate gradation control becomes unable to be
`performed. So it's a criticism of this approach to
`voltage.
`Now, there's a second way that you see voltage
`being used, and that's here on this slide 21. This is
`column 10, lines 45 through 55. And when it describes the
`patent in several places -- I'll show you two, but I think
`there's closer on the order of ten of these. When it
`describes the gradation current, it also will sometimes
`say that the gradation selection unit or generation unit,
`I should say, can generate also what it calls a
`non-light-emitting display voltage Vzero. And this is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`09:26:19
`
`09:26:26
`
`09:26:30
`
`09:26:33
`
`09:26:38
`
`09:26:42
`
`09:26:44
`
`09:26:47
`
`09:26:47
`
`09:26:51
`
`09:26:55
`
`09:26:59
`
`09:27:03
`
`09:27:09
`
`09:27:12
`
`09:27:15
`
`09:27:16
`
`09:27:18
`
`09:27:23
`
`09:27:27
`
`09:27:30
`
`09:27:33
`
`09:27:35
`
`09:27:39
`
`09:27:43
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`LG
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
