IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD., an Irish corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00236-ADA
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean
`corporation; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a
`Korean corporation; and SONY
`CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`AND SONY CORPORATION’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and Sony Corporation
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby disclose their Joint Invalidity Contentions. Defendants
`
`contend that each of the claims asserted by Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas” or “Plaintiff”) is
`
`invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`A.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`On November 26, 2019, Solas served Defendants with Infringement Contentions, alleging
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,432,891 (the “’891 patent”), 7,573,068 (the “’068 patent”), and
`
`7,907,137 (the “’137 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Solas alleges Defendants
`
`infringe the following claims of the Asserted Patents (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”):
`
`• Claims 1 and 3 of the ’891 patent;
`
`• Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 13, and 17 of the ’068 patent;
`
`• Claims 10, 11, 15, 36, 37, and 39 of the ’137 patent;
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 1
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Pursuant to the Order Governing Proceedings-Patent Case, entered November 8, 2019
`
`(Dkt. 50) (“Order Governing Proceedings”), Defendants do not provide any contentions regarding
`
`any claims not asserted in Solas’s Infringement Contentions. To the extent that the Court permits
`
`Solas to assert additional claims against Defendants, each Defendant reserves the right to disclose
`
`new, amended, or supplemental invalidity contentions.
`
`Defendants provide these disclosures consistent with the schedule currently in place, and
`
`do so without waiving any right to receive from Solas such full and complete specific infringement
`
`disclosures as should have been provided from the outset. Solas’s Infringement Contentions are
`
`deficient in multiple respects and do not provide Defendants with sufficient information to
`
`understand the specific accused features and components and the alleged factual and evidentiary
`
`bases for Solas’s allegations. Among other things, Solas’s Infringement Contentions lack
`
`specificity, fail to properly identify accused instrumentalities and disclose Solas’s contentions for
`
`each such accused instrumentality, and do not adequately explain Solas’s infringement theory for
`
`numerous claim elements. Solas has thus substantially prejudiced Defendants’ ability to
`
`understand, for purposes of preparing these Invalidity Contentions, what Solas alleges to be the
`
`scope of the Asserted Claims. To the extent Solas modifies or amends any assertion or contention
`
`in Solas’s Infringement Contentions, or presents any new assertion or contention relevant to
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, Defendants may modify, amend, and/or supplement their
`
`Invalidity Contentions. Defendants’ compliance with the current schedule should not be viewed
`
`as a waiver of any right to seek relief regarding the deficiencies in Solas’s Infringement
`
`Contentions, which Defendants expressly reserve.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The Court has not yet construed the Asserted Claims. Defendants reserve all rights to
`
`modify, amend, and/or supplement their Invalidity Contentions in accordance with the Order
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 2
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Governing Proceedings following the Court’s claim construction ruling or upon disclosure,
`
`alteration, or clarification by Solas of its proposed claim constructions to the extent permitted by
`
`this Court. Defendants also may modify, amend, and/or supplement these Invalidity Contentions
`
`in response to any alleged supporting evidence offered by Solas, any report from any expert
`
`witness for Solas regarding claim construction issues, any claim construction briefing filed by
`
`Solas, or any position taken by Solas concerning claim construction, infringement, or validity
`
`issues.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are based in part on their present understanding of
`
`Solas’s Infringement Contentions. In some instances, Solas’s Infringement Contentions contradict
`
`the teachings of the Asserted Patents, contradict the understanding of the claim terms by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, are internally inconsistent, and are vague and conclusory concerning
`
`how the claim limitations supposedly read on the accused products or activities. As a result,
`
`Defendants are currently unable to fully discern Solas’s position regarding the construction of
`
`these claim limitations. Defendants may modify, amend, and/or supplement their Invalidity
`
`Contentions, including, without limitation, pursuant to the Order Governing Proceedings.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions do not represent their agreement or view as to the
`
`meaning of any claim term contained therein. To the extent that Defendants assert that prior art is
`
`anticipatory or renders obvious claims based on any apparent construction of the Asserted Claims
`
`by Solas, Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are not—and should not be interpreted as—adoptions
`
`or admissions as to the accuracy of that scope or construction. Thus, Defendants’ contentions
`
`herein are not, and should in no way be seen as, admissions or adoptions as to any particular claim
`
`scope or construction, any priority date, any admission that any claims have been properly asserted
`
`in this case, or as any admission that any aspect of any accused products or systems meets any
`
`particular claim element in any particular way. Defendants object to any attempt to imply claim
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 3
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`construction from the attached charts. These invalidity contentions are made under a variety of
`
`alternatives and do not represent Defendants’ agreement or view as to the meaning, definiteness,
`
`written description support for, or enablement of any claim contained therein.
`
`Defendants therefore take no position on any matter of claim construction in these
`
`Invalidity Contentions. Defendants may propose any claim construction they consider appropriate
`
`and to contest any claim construction they consider inappropriate. Defendants also may argue that
`
`certain claim terms, phrases, and elements are indefinite, lack written description, are not enabled,
`
`are not patentable, are not novel and/or are otherwise invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112.
`
`Because of the uncertainty of claim construction, Defendants may further supplement or
`
`modify the positions and information in these Invalidity Contentions, including, without limitation,
`
`the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein, after the Asserted Claims have been
`
`construed, in accordance with the Order Governing Proceedings and any other applicable court
`
`orders.
`
`C.
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Solas has not provided any contention that any claim limitation is allegedly infringed under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents. Should Solas receive leave to amend to add to its contentions any
`
`specific allegations of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, Defendants may amend and
`
`supplement these Invalidity Contentions as appropriate.
`
`D.
`
`Ongoing Discovery and Disclosures
`
`Discovery and Defendants’ investigation, including Defendants’ search for prior art, are
`
`ongoing. In particular, discovery has not begun and Defendants are still investigating sources of
`
`prior art in the possession of third parties. Defendants plan to issue appropriate subpoenas to third
`
`parties requesting information relating to prior art and the invalidity of the Asserted Claims. Also,
`
`Solas has not yet provided all documentation regarding prior art, conception, or reduction to
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 4
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 4
`
`

`

`practice of the alleged inventions in its possession, custody, or control.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants may supplement, amend, and/or alter the positions taken and
`
`information disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions after review of the documents produced in
`
`response to the applicable Initial Disclosures, Additional Disclosures, or requests for production.
`
`To the extent Solas’s document production is incomplete with respect to documents relating to the
`
`invalidity of the Asserted Claims, Defendants may supplement, amend, or alter the positions taken
`
`and information disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions, if and when Solas or a third party
`
`produces additional relevant documents.
`
`Defendants may supplement, amend, and/or alter the positions taken and information
`
`disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions including, without limitation, the prior art and grounds
`
`of invalidity set forth herein, to take into account information or defenses that may come to light
`
`as a result of Defendants’ discovery efforts. Defendants may supplement, amend, and/or alter the
`
`positions taken and information disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions, pursuant to the Order
`
`Governing Proceedings. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference the relevant testimony of
`
`any fact witnesses who are deposed, provide declarations, or otherwise testify in this lawsuit.
`
`Defendants also hereby incorporate by reference the reports and testimony of any expert witnesses
`
`who opine on Defendants’ behalf regarding the Asserted Patents.
`
`E.
`
`Additional Reservations of Rights
`
`The accompanying invalidity claim charts (Appendices A-C) identify specific instances
`
`where prior art references disclose, either expressly, implicitly in the larger context of the passage,
`
`or inherently, each limitation of the Asserted Claims and/or examples of disclosures in view of
`
`which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered each limitation obvious.
`
`Citations included in these charts for independent claims necessarily also apply to their associated
`
`dependent claims. Defendants have endeavored to identify the most relevant portions of the
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 5
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`references, but the references may contain additional support for particular claim limitations.
`
`Defendants may rely on uncited portions of the prior art references, other documents, and/or
`
`operational systems, as well as fact and expert testimony, to provide context or to aid in
`
`understanding the cited portions of the references. Defendants may also rely on any prior art
`
`system referenced, embodied, or described in any of the prior art references identified herein, or
`
`which embodies any of the prior art references identified herein. Moreover, Defendants may
`
`further rely on inventor admissions concerning the scope of the prior art relevant to the asserted
`
`patents found in, inter alia, the prosecution histories of the asserted patents and related patents
`
`and/or patent applications, any testimony or declarations of the named inventors concerning the
`
`asserted patents or related patents, and any papers or evidence submitted by Plaintiff in connection
`
`with this litigation, any other pending or future litigation brought by Plaintiff involving the asserted
`
`patents or related patents, or inter partes review or other proceedings involving the asserted patents
`
`or related patents. Defendants also may establish what was known to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art through other publications, products, and/or testimony.
`
`Where Defendants cite to a particular figure in a reference, the citation should be
`
`understood to encompass the caption of the figure and other text relating to and/or describing the
`
`figure. Similarly, where Defendants cite to particular text referring to a figure, the citation should
`
`be understood to include the figure and related figures as well.
`
`Moreover, Defendants may rely on uncited portions of the identified prior art, other art, or
`
`expert testimony to provide context to or aid in understanding the cited portions of the identified
`
`prior art. Defendants also may rely upon treatises, published industry standards, and similar
`
`documents to demonstrate the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`Defendants may rely on any invalidity challenge, including contentions previously served
`
`or subsequently served in any related litigations, including but not limited to Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 6
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-00537-ADA, pending in the United States District Court for
`
`the Western District of Texas; Solas OLED Ltd. v. Google Inc., 6:19-cv-00515-ADA, pending in
`
`the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas; Solas OLED Ltd. v. Dell Inc.,
`
`6:19-cv-00514-ADA, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas;
`
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA, pending in the
`
`United States District Court for the Western District of Texas; Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung
`
`Display Co., Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG, pending in the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas; and Solas OLED Ltd. v. HP, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:19-
`
`cv-00631-ADA, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, in
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2020-00177, and all other challenges to the Asserted Claims or foreign
`
`equivalents. All invalidity challenges are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
`
`Defendants’ identification in the prior art of claim elements recited in the preamble of any
`
`claims is not intended to indicate that any such preamble is limiting. All such disclosures are made
`
`only to the extent the preamble is determined to be limiting.
`
`As described above, Defendants also intend to seek discovery from third parties to
`
`demonstrate earlier invention of the claimed inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). Defendants
`
`further intend to take discovery on the issues of improper inventorship and/or derivation under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(f), public use and/or the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and/or failure to
`
`comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112. Defendants may therefore modify, amend, and/or supplement these
`
`Invalidity Contentions if and when further information becomes available.
`
`Subject to the foregoing statements and qualifications, Defendants provide the following:
`
`II.
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,432,891 (’891 patent)
`
`1. Alleged Priority Date
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 7
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Solas alleges that the priority date of the ’891 patent is “no later than November 22, 2002,
`
`the filing date of patent application DE 102 54 511.1 in the German Patent and Trade Mark Office.”
`
`See Solas’s Infringement Contentions at 6. The ’891 patent is not entitled to any date of invention
`
`earlier than this date. Defendants object to Solas alleging or providing evidence of any earlier date
`
`of invention. To the extent Solas is able and permitted to assert an earlier date of invention for the
`
`’891 Patent, Defendants reserve all rights to modify, amend, and/or supplement these Invalidity
`
`Contentions, including, but not limited to the identification and production of additional prior art.
`
`2. General State of the Art at the Time of the Alleged Invention
`
`The prior art admitted in the ’891 patent (including the “References Cited” on the face of
`
`the ’891 patent) may provide background and context pertinent to the teachings, and interpretation
`
`of, the prior art referenced by the claim charts in Appendix A and described below. For example,
`
`the ’891 patent admits that “various compensation features for the drive current fluctuations of”
`
`an OLED had already been proposed in the art, and that drive circuits for OLED displays having
`
`compensation features “typically” used thin film transistors. ’891 patent at 1:22-31. The ’891
`
`patent also admits that driving circuits using thin film transistors “for supplying the LED current
`
`back to an external current-voltage conversion circuit and therefore allowing a feedback of the
`
`actual flowing current” were well known. Id. at 1:22-53. These are binding admissions by the
`
`patentee of what was known in the prior art. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848
`
`F.2d 1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`In addition, as the ’891 patent and the prior art references identified herein demonstrate,
`
`the asserted claims of the ’891 patent merely disclose concepts that were well-known in the state
`
`of the art as of the priority date of the ’891 patent. First, the patent admits that display screens
`
`using OLEDs were well known in the art. ’891 patent at 1:14-17. Second, the ’891 patent
`
`addresses a well-known problem with active matrix drive circuits: “manufacturing-dependent
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 8
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`fluctuations of the parameters of the thin film transistors” affect the amount of current provided to
`
`each OLED. ’891 patent at 1:14-21, 1:22-36 (prior-art solutions for “driver current fluctuations”);
`
`Bu (Ex. 1003), [8]-[9]. Third, the general features of an OLED and its nonlinear switching
`
`characteristics were well known, including that it could “serve[] both the display and switching
`
`function[]” in a driving circuit. Tang, 3:3-8.
`
`The prior art references that anticipate and/or render obvious one or more Asserted Claims
`
`of the ’891 patent are identified in the claim charts of Exhibits A1-A5 (collectively, “Appendix
`
`A”) and in the sections below. These prior art references generally relate to OLEDs, their drive
`
`circuits, and other circuitry commonly found in OLED drive circuits. This prior art is exemplary
`
`only, and is not in any way intended to limit the scope of what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood at the time of the alleged invention. Defendants may rely upon additional prior
`
`art, information, expert opinion, and/or knowledge to demonstrate what one of ordinary skill would
`
`have understood prior to the date of alleged invention of the Asserted Claims of the ’891 patent.
`
`3. Disclosure of Prior Art References
`(a) Prior Art Patents, Patent Applications, and Publications
`
`Patent or Patent Application No. Country of Origin
`
`Date of Issue (if Issued Patent)
`/ Date of Publication (if Patent
`Application Publication)
`
`Application
`Patent
`Korean
`Publication No. 2002-0027957
`(“Kim”)
`
`Korea
`
`April 15, 2002
`
`United States Patent No. 6,809,706
`(“Shimoda”)
`
`Japan
`
`October 26, 2004
`
`United States Patent No. 6,433,488
`(“Bu”)
`
`United States
`
`August 13, 2002
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 9
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent or Patent Application No. Country of Origin
`
`Date of Issue (if Issued Patent)
`/ Date of Publication (if Patent
`Application Publication)
`
`Application
`Patent
`U.S.
`Publication No. 2002/0101395
`(“Inukai”)
`
`United States Patent No. 5,550,066
`(“Tang”)
`
`Patent
`U.S.
`Publication No.
`(“Libsch”)
`
`Application
` 2004/0095297
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,535,185 (“Kim-
`185”)
`
`United States
`
`August 1, 2002
`
`United States
`
`August 27, 1996
`
`United States
`
`May 20, 2004
`
`United States
`
`March 18, 2003
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Shimoda”)
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Tang”)
`
`6,809,706
`
`United States
`
`October 26, 2004
`
`5,550,066
`
`United States
`
`August 27, 1996
`
`UK Patent Application No.
`2,389,952 (“Routley”)
`
`United Kingdom
`
`December 24, 2003
`
`US Patent No. 6,361,886 (“Shi”) United States
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Duggal”)
`
`6,777,724
`
`United States
`
`March 26, 2002
`
`August 17, 2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,970,318 (“Choi”) United States
`
`October 19, 1999
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,075 (“Park-
`075”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,328 (“Park-
`328”)
`
`United States
`
`December 28, 2004
`
`United States
`
`August 3, 2004
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 10
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent or Patent Application No. Country of Origin
`
`Date of Issue (if Issued Patent)
`/ Date of Publication (if Patent
`Application Publication)
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Sherman”)
`
`6,611,174
`
`United States
`
`August 26, 2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,429,841 (“Lee”) United States
`
`Application
`Patent
`U.S.
`Publication No. 2002/0101395
`(“Inukai”)
`
`Application
`Patent
`U.S.
`Publication No. 2003/0071821
`(“Sundahl”)
`
`United States
`
`August 6, 2002
`
`August 1, 2002
`
`United States
`
`April 17, 2003
`
`European Patent Application No.
`EP 1,005,013 (“Dodabalapur”)
`
`Europe
`
`May 31, 2000
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Suzuki”)
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Kane”)
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Okabe”)
`
`6,873,309
`
`United States
`
`March 29, 2005
`
`6,229,508
`
`United States
`
`May 8, 2001
`
`7,154,454
`
`United States
`
`December 26, 2006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No.
`20030103022 (“Noguchi”)
`
`
`United States
`
`June 5, 2003
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Sekiya”)
`
`6,583,775
`
`United States
`
`June 24, 2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,552,678 (“Tang-
`678”)
`
`United States
`
`September 3, 1996
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 11
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent or Patent Application No. Country of Origin
`
`Date of Issue (if Issued Patent)
`/ Date of Publication (if Patent
`Application Publication)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2001/0043173
`(“Troutman”)
`
`United States
`
`November 22, 2001
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Uchino”)
`
`7,714,813
`
`United States
`
`May 11, 2010
`
`JPH 10254410A (“Imai”)
`
`Japan
`
`September 25, 1998
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,917,350 (“Pae”) United States
`
`Patent No.
`U.S.
`(“Giacomini”)
`
`5,900,779
`
`United States
`
`July 12, 2005
`
`May 4, 1999
`
`
`
`Title
`
`Date of Publication
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`1979
`
`1994
`
`1998
`
`1989
`
`Microelectronics – Digital and
`Analog Circuits and Systems
`(“Millman”)
`
`Silicone Compatible Organic
`Light Emitting Diode, 12 J. of
`Lightwave Tech. (“Helen Kim
`et al.”)
`
`Principles of VLSI Design
`(“Weste”)
`
`and
`Implementation
`of Current
`Applications
`and
`Current
`Sources
`Receivers (“Burr-Brown”)
`
`Jacob Millman
`
`Helen H. Kim, et. al.,
`
`Neil H.E. Weste & Kamran
`Eshraghian,
`
`Burr-Brown
`
`Transimpedance
`
`amplifier 1995
`
`Phillips Semiconductors
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 12
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Date of Publication
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`(b)
`
`Prior Art Systems
`
`Title
`
`280MhZ (“NE5210)
`
`
`
`Numerous systems are prior art to the ’891 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b)
`
`and/or (g), and anticipate and/or render obvious the Asserted Claims of the ’891 patent. These
`
`systems also include physical implementations of prior art patents, patent applications, and
`
`publications identified herein that were known, made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported into
`
`this country prior to the effective filing dates of the ’891 patent, including those identified above
`
`and discussed in the sections below.
`
`In addition, Defendants may rely on systems or other embodiments of the subject matter
`
`described in each of the references described above. Each of the references cited in support of the
`
`above systems may also be prior art individually under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g).
`
`As discovery is ongoing, Defendants continue to investigate these items and may amend or
`
`supplement these contentions to include additional information or documents regarding such
`
`products and/or systems.
`
`4. Anticipation and Obviousness
`
`Reference to a particular circuitry, software program, device or product in the claim charts
`
`of Appendix A and in Section II.A.4.(c) should be interpreted as a reference to the product itself
`
`and any corresponding patents, publications, or product literature cited in Appendix A and Section
`
`II.A.4.(c) that relates to the cited circuitry, software program, device, or product. In addition,
`
`Defendants may rely on other documents or things that have not yet been located to support their
`
`contentions regarding such prior art circuit(s), software program(s), device(s) or product(s) that
`
`are referenced in the charts.
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference, as if set forth fully herein, all prior art cited during
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 13
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`the prosecution of the ’891 patent. In addition, Defendants identify and hereby incorporate by
`
`reference as if set forth fully herein the prior art references that anticipate or render obvious an
`
`asserted claim as described in IPR2020-00177 and any future reexaminations or additional inter
`
`partes reviews of the ’891 patent, if any, that a requestor may file or the PTO may grant.
`
`Defendants further identify and hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth fully herein
`
`the prior art references and invalidity contentions as described in any other lawsuits wherein
`
`invalidity contentions have been, or will be, provided regarding the ’891 patent, its foreign
`
`counterparts, or any parent or child patent of the ’891 patent. Defendants may use any and all
`
`portions of the publication, related publications, commercial embodiments of the publication, and
`
`other evidence that is discovered in these lawsuits to demonstrate and/or evidence the components,
`
`functionality, and capabilities of the devices and systems disclosed in the references charted.
`
`It should be recognized that a person of ordinary skill in the art would generally read a
`
`prior art reference as a whole and in the context of other publications, literature, and general
`
`knowledge in the field. To understand and interpret any specific statement or disclosure in a prior
`
`art reference, a person of ordinary skill in the art would rely upon other information including other
`
`publications and general scientific or engineering knowledge. Defendants therefore may rely upon
`
`other unidentified portions of the prior art references and on other publications and expert
`
`testimony to provide context and to aid understanding and interpretation of the identified portions.
`
`Defendants may also rely upon other portions of the prior art references, other publications,
`
`and the testimony of experts to establish that the alleged inventions would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, including the basis of modifying or combining certain cited
`
`references. To the extent any limitation is deemed not to be met by an item of prior art, then any
`
`purported differences are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`to one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the state of the art and
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 14
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`knowledge of those skilled in the art. To the extent that an element of an Asserted Claim is not
`
`anticipated, the claim is rendered obvious by combination with one or more other prior art
`
`references identified in Appendix A and Section II.A.4(c).
`
`(a) Anticipation
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims of the ’891 patent is anticipated by prior art. Prior art
`
`references anticipating some or all of the Asserted Claims of the ’891 patent are listed in the table
`
`below. A full citation to each reference is found in Section II.A.4.(a)., along with the “Short
`
`Name” used to identify each reference throughout these disclosures, including the claim charts of
`
`Appendix A. The corresponding claim charts to the references below in Appendix A identify
`
`specific examples of where each limitation of the claims is found in that reference, including, to
`
`the extent any limitation is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the structure that performs the claimed
`
`function.
`
`
`
`Prior Art
`
`Kim
`
`Shimoda
`
`(b)
`
`Prior Art Rendering Asserted Claims Obvious
`
`To the extent a finder of fact determines that a limitation of any of the Asserted Claims of
`
`the ’891 patent is not disclosed by one of the references or products and systems identified above,
`
`the claims are nevertheless invalid as obvious. No asserted claim goes beyond combining familiar
`
`elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results or does more than choose
`
`between clear alternatives known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Furthermore, Defendants identify in Appendix A and in the sections below the prior art
`
`references that render obvious the Asserted Claims of the ’891 patent and include an identification
`
`of combinations showing the obviousness of the Asserted Claims in view of the prior art.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 15
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Moreover, to the extent Solas contends that an element is not disclosed in any one of the references
`
`identified in Appendix A, such reference may be combined with one or more of the other
`
`references identified in Appendix A and/or in the charts in Sections II.A.4(c) for such element,
`
`thereby rendering the claim invalid as obvious.
`
`(c)
`
`Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation to Combine
`References
`
`While Defendants herein provide notice of the prior art references that render obvious the
`
`’891 patent, including illustrative teachings, suggestions, and motivations to combine such
`
`references, Defendants reserve the right to provide more detailed discussions of the references and
`
`the corresponding motivations to combine in its forthcoming expert reports.
`
`The U.S. Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al. 127 S.
`
`Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007) (“KSR”) held that a claimed invention can be obvious even if there is no
`
`explicit, written teaching, suggestion, or motivation for combining the prior art to produce that
`
`invention. Accordingly, no showing of a specific motivation to combine prior art is required to
`
`combine the references disclosed in the attached charts, as each combination of art would have no
`
`unexpected results, and, at most, would simply represent a known alternative to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739-40 (rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “rigid” application
`
`of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine test, and instead espousing an “expansive
`
`and flexible” approach). A person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity,
`
`not an automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 1742. “In determining
`
`whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the
`
`avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” Id. at
`
`1741-42. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the
`
`time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS – Page 16
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. V. SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`IPR2020-01055
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle that
`
`“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
`
`it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 1739. A key inquiry is whether the
`
`“improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions.” Id. at 1740.
`
`The rationale to combine or modify prior art references is significantly stronger when the
`
`references seek to