UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean
`corporation
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a Korean
`corporation
`and SONY CORPORATION, a
`Japanese corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF SOLAS OLED LTD.’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-17)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Solas OLED
`
`Ltd. (“Solas”) hereby objects and responds to Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd, LG Electronics, Inc
`
`and Sony Corporation’s (collectively “Defendants”) First Set of Interrogatories as follows:
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Discovery in this matter is still ongoing. Solas is presently pursuing its investigation and
`
`analysis of the facts and law relating to this case and has not completed such investigation or
`
`preparation for trial. Therefore, these responses and objections, while based on diligent factual
`
`exploration by Solas and its counsel, reflect only Solas’s current state of knowledge, understanding
`
`and belief with regard to the matters about which inquiry has been made. Solas anticipates that,
`
`1
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1031
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01055
`
`Ex. 1031-001
`
`

`

` Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Solas has produced or will produce
`
`documents from which further information responsive to this interrogatory may be determined,
`
`including at least the following: SOLAS_LG_0003193-97
`
`Solas’s investigation is ongoing; Solas reserves the right to modify or supplement this
`
`response should additional information become available.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`
`For each Asserted Claim of each Asserted Patent, describe whether you assert the claim is
`
`valid, and for each claim you assert is valid: (a) describe in detail each and every basis for your
`
`contention of validity; (b) with respect to each prior art reference, or combination of prior art
`
`references, identified by Defendants as a basis for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103,
`
`describe in detail each and every basis on which you contest such assertion of invalidity, including
`
`but not limited to which, if any, limitation of each claim you assert is not disclosed by that prior
`
`art reference or combination of prior art references, and describe in detail the complete basis for
`
`any disagreement you have with the analysis set forth by Defendants; (c) with respect to 35 U.S.C.§
`
`112, describe in detail each and every basis for your contention that the requirements of 35 U.S.C.§
`
`112 are satisfied, including describe in detail the complete basis for any disagreement you have
`
`with § 112 analysis set forth by Defendants; (d) identify all Documents you assert support your
`
`assertions of validity; and (e) identify the three (3) Persons most knowledgeable about the factual
`
`bases for your assertions.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`
`Solas objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
`
`burdensome. Solas objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is impermissibly compound.
`
`Solas further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the
`
`
`
`31
`
`Ex. 1031-002
`
`

`

`attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Solas further
`
`objects that this interrogatory seeks contentions upon matters which Defendants carry the burden
`
`of proof. Solas further objects to this request because it prematurely seeks disclosure of expert
`
`opinion.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its specific or general objections, Solas responds as follows.
`
`Solas asserts that each of the Asserted Claims is valid. The Asserted Patents are entitled to a
`
`presumption of validity and Defendants have failed to rebut that presumption. An expert opinion
`
`on validity would be premature at this point at least because Defendants have not yet served their
`
`expert reports detailing their theories as to the alleged invalidity of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Defendants carry the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted
`
`Claims are invalid, and Solas is not required to respond to theories that have not yet been fully
`
`propounded by Defendants. Should Defendants serve expert reports setting forth their theories
`
`alleging that the Asserted Claims are invalid, Solas will serve a rebuttal expert report concerning
`
`validity, on December 4, 2020, in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 59),
`
`and Solas directs Defendants to that expert report.
`
`Solas’s investigation is ongoing; Solas reserves the right to modify or supplement this
`
`response should additional information become available.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 (SEPT. 11, 2020):
`
`Solas further responds as follows. As to § 112, Solas incorporates its supplemental response
`
`to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 10. As to alleged lack of enablement or indefiniteness,
`
`Defendants bear the burden to prove these defenses by clear and convincing evidence. Defendants
`
`assertions are deficient and do not provide Solas with adequate notice. For example, Defendants’
`
`final invalidity contentions merely list various claim elements as purportedly lacking enablement
`
`
`
`32
`
`Ex. 1031-003
`
`

`

`or being indefinite without any additional explanation, making it impossible for Solas to
`
`understand or even respond to Defendants’ assertions. To the contrary, a POSITA would
`
`understand in view of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that each of the terms Defendants’
`
`identify are enabled and not indefinite. Further, Solas incorporates all materials cited in the parties’
`
`claim construction briefing concerning these limitations or portions thereof. To the extent that
`
`relevant claim language was construed by the Court, the claim construction proceedings in this
`
`case provide further support that the terms are enabled and not indefinite.
`
`As to prior art invalidity, Solas identifies and incorporates the relevant record in the file
`
`histories of the Asserted Patents, as well as any reexam or IPR proceedings. For example, Solas
`
`incorporates any Patent Owner Preliminary Responses and Patent Owner Responses (and material
`
`cited therein) that were or will be served in IPRs on the Asserted Patents, including:
`
`•
`
`IPR2020-01238 on the ’068 patent filed by Defendant LG Display Co., Ltd.; IPR2020-
`
`01055 on the ’137 patent filed by Defendant LG Display Co., Ltd; and IPR2020-00177
`
`on the ’891 patent filed by Defendant LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`Further, Defendants have not shown that the lengthy list of alleged “prior art” is really prior
`
`art or that it provides any legitimate basis to invalidate these claims under any specific theory of
`
`anticipation or obviousness.
`
`As to obviousness, Defendants have not charted any combination of references, or
`
`indicated which elements are missing from any reference or where those missing elements could
`
`be found in a different prior art reference. Defendants’ analysis of obviousness purporting to
`
`provide motivation to combine some “references identified in Appendix B” with “other references
`
`in Appendix B” does not provide Solas with notice of Defendants’ invalidity theories because it
`
`does not identify specific combinations of references and specific claim limitations. In their final
`
`
`
`33
`
`Ex. 1031-004
`
`

`

`invalidity contentions, Defendants state “[t]o the extent that Solas contends that any of the references
`
`identified in Appendix B do not disclose these limitations, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have arrived at the purported invention based on her own background knowledge and/or one or more
`
`of the prior art references identified in the chart below.” Defendants then present long string cites to
`
`various portions of the cited art for various limitations. Thus, for just a single claim element,
`
`Defendants attempt to combine any of the more than twenty references cited in its Appendix B
`
`with any other reference cited in Appendix B, resulting in thousands of possible permutations. If
`
`Defendants have an actual theory of invalidity based on obviousness, it is well-hidden among these
`
`thousands of possible combinations. It is unduly burdensome to ask Solas to address each of these,
`
`and Solas will not do so. In addition, none of these alleged combinations include any analysis of
`
`why a POSITA would look to the cited portion of the prior art and combine that with a particular
`
`embodiment described in a different reference. Defendants take a similar approach to obvious
`
`combinations involving references cited in Appendices A and C to their invalidity contentions,
`
`and the vast number of possible combinations similarly prevents Solas from learning of
`
`Defendants’ actual invalidity theories.
`
`As to Defendants’ purported anticipation analysis included in the claim charts attached to
`
`Defendants’ invalidity contentions, it is filled with citations to different embodiments within each
`
`alleged prior art reference. For this reason, the analysis is deficient. Defendants have also not
`
`offered any analysis as to why any of the citations offered actually disclose the relevant claim
`
`limitation. Solas disagrees that any of these citations satisfy Defendants’ burden to prove by clear
`
`and convincing evidence that any of the claim limitations are present in the alleged prior art, much
`
`less that each limitation of any asserted claim in present in the prior art. Nor does Defendants’
`
`cursory assertions adequately show that a POSITA would understand that any claim limitation is
`
`present by clear and convincing evidence. Defendants’ anticipation (and obviousness) assertions
`
`
`
`34
`
`Ex. 1031-005
`
`

`

`also fail for the reasons that were or will be explained in Solas’s Preliminary Responses or Patent
`
`Owner Responses in IPRs challenging the Asserted Patents.
`
`Solas’s investigation is ongoing; Solas reserves the right to modify or supplement this
`
`response should additional information become available.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`
`Describe in detail the factual and legal basis and supporting evidence for the damages to
`
`which You contend You are entitled to seek in this action, including whether You contend that
`
`You are entitled to a reasonable royalty, the specific dollar amount of damages, the date You
`
`contend is applicable for the hypothetical negotiation, all facts, documents, testimony and evidence
`
`that support Your contention and all persons having knowledge of, contradicting, or otherwise
`
`relating to Your contention. If Your claimed damages include royalties, then Your answer should
`
`include, without limitation, the factual basis for any Georgia-Pacific factors or other factors that
`
`are relevant to the determination of royalties.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`
`Solas objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
`
`burdensome. Solas objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is impermissibly compound.
`
`Solas further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Solas further
`
`objects to this request because it prematurely seeks disclosure of expert opinion.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its Specific or General Objections, Solas responds as
`
`follows. Based on the evidence of which Solas is currently aware, Solas is seeking monetary
`
`damages at least in the form of a reasonable royalty. In the absence of expert opinion (which is
`
`premature at this time), Solas has not determined which methodology or methodologies (including
`
`
`
`35
`
`Ex. 1031-006
`
`

`

`ratios, higher brightness levels, better display uniformity, fuller viewing angles, wider color
`
`ranges, and faster refresh rates, all of which contribute to an improved and more pleasant viewing
`
`experience.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Solas will produce documents from
`
`which further information responsive to this interrogatory may be determined. Solas also refers to
`
`its forthcoming expert reports on damages and/or technical matters for responsive information.
`
`Solas’s investigation is ongoing; Solas reserves the right to modify or supplement this
`
`response should additional information become available.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Marc Fenster
`CA State Bar No. 181067
`Reza Mirzaie
`CA State Bar No. 246953
`Neil A. Rubin
`CA State Bar No. 250761
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Telephone: 310-826-7474
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`40
`
`Ex. 1031-007
`
`

`

`Sean A. Luner
`CA State Bar No. 165443
`Gregory S. Dovel
`CA State Bar No. 135387
`Jonas B. Jacobson
`CA State Bar No. 269912
`DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
`201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone: 310-656-7066
`Email: sean@dovel.com
`Email: greg@dovel.com
`Email: jonas@dovel.com
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`TX State Bar No. 00794818
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`TX State Bar No. 24053063
`Andrea L. Fair
`TX State Bar No. 24078488
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`PO Box 1231
`Longview, Texas 75606
`Telephone: 903-757-6400
`Email: jw@wsfirm.com
`Email: claire@wsfirm.com
`Email: andrea@wsfirm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
`SOLAS OLED LTD.
`
`
`
`41
`
`Ex. 1031-008
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record were served with a copy of the foregoing
`
`document via electronic mail on September 11, , 2020.
`
`
`
` /s/ Philip X. Wang
`Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1031-009
`
`