Filed on behalf of: LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: October 8, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2020-01055
`Patent 7,907,137
`______________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO THE
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: October 8, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2020-01055
`Patent 7,907,137
`______________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO THE
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) .............................................. 1, 2, 3, 4
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell,
`IPR2020-00204, Paper 11 (June 19, 2020) ................................................... 2, 4, 5
`Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings,
`IPR2020-00686, Paper 9 (Sept. 23, 2020) ........................................................ 2, 3
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks,
`IPR2020-00180, Paper 12 (Aug. 14, 2020) .......................................................... 2
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks,
`IPR2020-00506, Paper 11 (Sept. 1, 2020) ........................................................ 1, 4
`Google v. Personalized Media Communications,
`IPR2020-00719, Paper 16 (Aug. 31, 2020) ...................................................... 2, 3
`Google v. Uniloc 2017,
`IPR2020-00479, Paper 10 (Aug. 13, 2020) .......................................................... 3
`Juniper Networks v. Packet Intelligence,
`IPR2020-00338, Paper 22 (Sept. 9, 2020) ............................................................ 1
`Sand Revolution II v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) ................................................... 1, 2, 3
`STATUTES
`28 U.S.C. § 1659 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`1002
`
`1006
`
`1009
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,907,137 (“’137 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution history for U.S. Patent Application 11/391,941 (“’137
`FH”)
`
`1003 Declaration of Miltiadis K. Hatalis, Ph.D., in Support of Petitioner’s
`Request for Inter Partes Review (“Hatalis”)
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Miltiadis K. Hatalis, Ph.D.
`
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0116902 (“Miyazawa”)
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2005/069267
`(“Childs”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0156837 (“Kasai”)
`
`1008 A. Ortiz-Conde, et. al., A Review of Recent MOSFET Threshold
`Voltage Extraction Methods, 583 Microelectronics Reliability 42
`(2002) (“Ortiz-Conde”)
`
`Solas's Opening Claim Construction Brief, Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG
`Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA, Dkt. 68 (W.D.
`Tex. Mar. 13, 2020) (“Solas's Op. Claim Construction Br.”)
`
`1010 Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief, Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA, Dkt. 67
`(W.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2020) (“Defendants' Op. Claim Construction
`Br.”)
`1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0101172 (“Bu”)
`
`Excerpts from Neil H.E. Weste & Kamran Eshraghian, Principles of
`CMOS VLSI Design (2nd Ed. 1993) (“Weste”)
`
`
`1012
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`1017
`
`Description
`
`1013 Answer and Counterclaims of Defendant LG Display Co., Ltd. to
`Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG
`Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA, Dkt. 41 (W.D.
`Tex. Oct. 28, 2019) (“Answer”)
`
`1014 UK Patent Application No. 2,389,952 (“Routley”)
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,809,706 (“Shimoda”)
`
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 8,115,707 (“Nathan”)
`
`Excerpts from Transcript of Telephonic Markman Hearing before the
`Honorable Alan. D. Albright, Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co.,
`Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2020)
`(“Markman Hearing Transcript”)
`
`1018 U.S. Patent No. 7,576,718 (“Miyazawa-718”)
`
`1019 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0067971 (“Kane”)
`
`Email from counsel for Petitioner to Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`(Sept. 30, 2020)
`
`Letter from counsel for LG Display Co. Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc. and
`Sony Corporation to counsel for Solas OLED Ltd. (Oct. 8, 2020)
`
`1022 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0099412 (“Kasai ’412”)
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1023
`
`Letter from counsel for Solas OLED Ltd. to ITC (Sept. 14, 2020)
`
`1024 Claim Construction Order, Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd.,
`et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA, Dkt. 82 (W.D. Tex. June 9,
`2020)
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`1025 Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Issuance of Letter Rogatory to
`Casio Computer Co., Ltd, Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et
`al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA, Dkt. 96 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2020)
`
`1026 Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Issuance of Letter Rogatory to Jun
`Ogura, Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-
`cv-00236-ADA, Dkt. 97 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2020)
`
`1027 Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Issuance of Letter Rogatory to
`Tomoyuki Shirasaki, Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al.,
`Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA, Dkt. 99 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2020)
`
`Text Order granting motion to extend deadline, Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA (W.D.
`Tex. July 15, 2020)
`
`Text Order granting motion to extend deadline, Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA (W.D.
`Tex. July 23, 2020)
`
`Plaintiff Solas OED Ltd.’s Responses and Objections to Defendants’
`First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-17), Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG
`Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`June 29, 2020) (Excerpts)
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd.’s First Supplemental Responses and
`Objections to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, Solas OLED
`Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00236-ADA
`(W.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2020) (Excerpts)
`
`Lex Machina report of Solas OLED Ltd. district court cases
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`I.
`
`The Board Should Reach the Merits of this Petition under NHK Spring
`A fair and “holistic” evaluation of the relevant factors reveals that institution
`furthers the Board’s considerations of “efficiency, fairness, and the merits,”
`especially in view of Petitioner LG’s stipulation. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). Patent
`Owner Solas arrived at a contrary conclusion only by consistently overstating and
`omitting relevant facts, and then opposed further briefing. Ex. 1020.
`To begin, Fintiv factor 1 is neutral because the court has not stated whether
`it would consider a stay. Sand Revolution II v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (June 16, 2020) (informative); Apple Inc. v. Seven
`Networks, IPR2020-00506, Paper 11 at 7 (Sept. 1, 2020) (“Seven-506”). Solas
`disagrees, relying on a Law360 article that does not address this case and is not
`binding authority. POPR 2-3. Solas also fails to mention that it recently asserted
`the ’068 patent against LG in the ITC—triggering a mandatory stay for that patent
`upon institution of the ITC investigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1659; Ex. 1023. The ’891
`patent’s IPR is already instituted, so there is little reason the WDTex litigation
`should not be stayed once this IPR is instituted.
`Similarly, Solas overstates Fintiv factor 5. This factor is “neutral or
`weighing at most slightly in favor of denial” because the parties are usually the
`same. Juniper Networks v. Packet Intelligence, IPR2020-00338, Paper 22 at 17
`(Sept. 9, 2020). Further, the facts that Solas is already asserting the ’137 patent
`against other parties and that Solas has filed 12 infringement suits in the past 18
`months (Exs. 1023, 1032) weigh towards institution for efficiency reasons.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`Solas also overstates extent of the overlap between the cases (Fintiv factor
`4). For example, Ex. 1007 (“Kasai”) and Kasai ’412 (Ex. 1022) are not
`“substantively similar and relied upon … in a substantially similar way,” POPR 12,
`as Kasai is plainly different from and used differently than Kasai ’412. Pet. 65-75;
`Ex. 2005 at 98-102. Similarly, while LG incorporated its prior art, LG did not
`“incorporate[] its IPR arguments into the WDTex case,” and relies on that art in
`different ways. POPR 11-12. In any event, this factor now favors institution
`because Defendants removed any possible overlap by stipulating they will not
`pursue any IPR grounds in the WDTex action if the Board institutes. Ex. 1021;
`Sand at 11-12; Fintiv at 12-13 (“materially different grounds” favor institution).
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, IPR2020-00180, Paper 12 at 14-15 (Aug. 14, 2020)
`(“Seven-180”). In addition, the IPR will invalidate more claims than those at issue
`in the WDTex proceeding, including independent claim 1, which recites an
`additional “supplying” feature not found in any asserted claims. Also, the number
`of asserted claims should be further reduced on January 8, 2021. Ex. 2001 at 3. To
`date, the Board has consistently granted institution in view of a similar stipulation.
`E.g., Sand at 11-12; Seven-180 at 14-15; Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, IPR2020-
`00686, Paper 9 at 18-19 (Sept. 23, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Maxell, IPR2020-00204,
`Paper 11 at 15-17 (June 19, 2020). The exceptions are the Google v. Personalized
`Media cases, e.g., IPR2020-00719, Paper 16 (Aug. 31, 2020) (“Personalized”). In
`those extreme cases, Google filed at “the last moment,” the parties had completed
`all discovery and dispositive motions, pre-trial motions were pending, and it would
`have taken “significant resources” to evaluate 329 related file histories to construe
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`ten disputed claim terms—which the court had already done and explained in its
`94-page Markman order. Personalized at 12-16 & n.10.
`In contrast, the court and the parties have made little relevant investment
`(Fintiv factor 3). Markman is complete, but Markman occurred before discovery
`and the “court’s [one]-page Markman Order … does not demonstrate the high level
`of investment … as the detailed Markman Order in Fintiv.” Sand at 10-11; Fintiv
`at 10 n.17 (claim construction due little weight when court “postpone[s] significant
`discovery until after [Markman]”); Ex. 2001 (postponing significant discovery
`until after Markman); Ex. 1024 at 1 (first five rows). Further, all but two of the
`court’s constructions are “plain and ordinary meaning” or “not indefinite,” and
`claim construction was relevant to infringement—not invalidity. Ex. 1024 at 1;
`POPR 8 (“narrower constructions” in the Petition); Pet. 15-16. “[T]here is little
`risk of the parties or [the Board] duplicating work” here because the “investment
`pertains primarily to infringement issues” and is therefore of “marginal relevance.”
`Google v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00479, Paper 10 at 13, 19 (Aug. 13, 2020); Parus
`at 16. Solas complains that LG waited until the court found that certain claim terms
`were not indefinite. POPR 8-9. But this cuts the other way: if the claims are
`indefinite, no IPR would be necessary or possible. Filing any sooner risked wasting
`significant party and Board resources.
`Solas also overstates the relevance of discovery, pointing to three motions
`for letters rogatory seeking third-party discovery, but they show little to no
`relevant investment. Exs. 1025-1027 (seeking information such as assignments
`and license agreements). Solas also points to a deposition, but probing into prior art
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`known by LG after LG filed its IPR and its invalidity contentions is not relevant.
`POPR 5-6 n.1. Further, LG’s invalidity contentions were no burden to Solas, and
`Solas is complaining in court that LG invested too little in them. Ex. 1031 at 33-
`35. Solas also complains of incurring “unfair costs,” but the bulk of the invalidity
`effort was borne by LG, not Solas, and Solas is free to agree to a stay of the district
`court case pending IPR. Further, expert discovery will not open until November,
`and will not be completed until after the Board institutes, even without further
`extensions. Ex. 2001 (schedule); Exs. 1028, 1029 (granting Solas’s previous
`extensions). None of these efforts involve the court, and the parties’ relevant
`efforts will be obviated by the stipulation upon institution.
`Solas also overstates the effect of Fintiv factor 2. The proximity to the trial
`date is evaluated on a “sliding scale” relative to the statutory one-year period for
`filing an IPR, and therefore weighs, at most, “moderately” in favor of denial.
`Seven-506 at 9 & n.6 (instituting despite ten-month gap after trial); Maxell at 18-19
`(instituting despite nine-month gap). Here, LG was diligent, filing its Petition
`about three months before the deadline—well before Solas responded at all, much
`less meaningfully, to LG’s invalidity contentions (Exs. 1030, 1031) or informed
`LG which patent claims it is asserting. Ex. 2001 at 3 (final infringement
`contentions due July 17, 2020, and narrowed claims due January 8, 2021); Fintiv at
`11 (diligent if petition filed promptly after becoming aware of asserted claims and
`before patent owner responds to invalidity contentions).
`The strong merits of the Petition also favor institution (Fintiv factor 6).
`Solas barely disputes the Petition’s actual substance, ineffectively relying on
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`attorney arguments. Specifically, the Petition established that Miyazawa detects the
`threshold voltage peculiar to the drive element, as claimed, using the “constant-
`current method” that is “widely used in industry because of its simplicity.” Pet. 33,
`35 (quoting Ex. 1008), 41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137-138 (the method’s inaccuracy is “not
`pertinent” when using a “small calibration current”). Solas’s attorney argument to
`the contrary (POPR 15-16) does not outweigh the Petition’s evidence. The Petition
`also established that a POSA would have improved on Miyazawa’s speed and
`accuracy by using the “voltage convergence technique” taught by Childs and
`described in the ’137 patent. Pet. 39-44. Solas does not dispute that Childs’
`technique is more accurate, which is reason enough to make the combination.
`Solas’s attorney argument that the combination requires significant modifications
`(POPR 15-16) is outweighed by Dr. Hatalis’s detailed expert testimony explaining
`exactly how a POSA “could have easily implemented” the required changes, which
`“are generally directed to timing arrangements” and “use Miyazawa’s existing
`circuits and lines.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147-150. Dr. Hatalis also testified that Miyazawa’s
`method takes longer than displaying a single frame because it uses a small current,
`while Childs’ method is fast enough to be performed during the time a frame is
`displayed. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140-142. Solas’s attorney argument to the contrary simply
`misstates the technology. POPR 17-18.
`In summary, the Board should decline Solas’s request to deny institution.
`Most of the Fintiv factors favor institution or are neutral, and any negative factors,
`such as the trial date, are substantially mitigated by the stipulation and the
`Petition’s merits. Maxell at 19-20.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`Dated: October 8, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Gabriel S. Gross (Reg. No. 52,973)
`gabe.gross@lw.com
`Douglas E. Lumish (pro hac vice
`forthcoming)
`doug.lumish@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.328.4600
`Fax: 650.463.2600
`
`Joseph H. Lee (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`joseph.lee@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
`Telephone: 714.540.1235
`Fax: 714.755.8290
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Blake R. Davis (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`blake.davis@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Telephone: 415.391.0600
`Fax: 415.395.8095
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01055 (USP 7,907,137)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 8th day of October
`
`
`
`
`
`2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response and all Exhibits were served by electronic mail on
`
`Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`
`
`Philip X. Wang
`pwang@raklaw.com
`Neil A. Rubin
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`Reza Mirzaie
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Kent N. Shum
`kshum@raklaw.com
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Telephone: 310.826.7474
`Fax: 310.826.6991
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
