Paper # 46
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: 3/17/22
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NANOCO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, February 23, 2022
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: 3/17/22
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NANOCO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, February 23, 2022
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`F. Christopher Mizzo, Esquire
`Gregory Arovas, Esquire
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`212.446.4800
`chris.mizzo@kirkland.com
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`William A. Meunier, Esquire
`Matt Galica, Esquire
`Michael Newman, Esquire
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`617.542.6000
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`MSGalica@mintz.com
`MCNewman@mintz.com
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, February
`23, 2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
` COURT REPORTER: And get them, and there is a public
`line and a form of live stream today. Once I connect the
`counsel, and say that all parties are connected, I will need
`just about a minute to get the public line started, and I
`will say it is connected when it's done.
` And when I finish the -- when I merge the video from
`the breakout rooms, there is a tendency to -- for -- for the
`system to mute your mics. Just make sure that it is unmuted
`again, just in case, whoev- -- whoever's speaking.
` Thank you. Give me just a minute. I'll be back. All
`right. All parties are connected. I'll need one minute for
`the public line to start. One second. And live stream is
`connected. You may -- you may begin.
` JUDGE KAISER: All right. Good afternoon, everybody.
`Thanks to everybody for being here. This is a hearing in IPR
`2021-00182, 183, 184, 185, and 186, all of which are
`captioned Samsung Electronics Company Limited versus Nanoco
`Technologies Limited.
` I'm Judge Kaiser and the other members of the panel
`here with me are Judges Franklin and Obermann. Before we get
`started, can we do a roll call of the other people here,
`starting first with Petitioner?
` MR. AROVAS: Yes, Your Honor. You know, good
`3
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`afternoon to everybody. You -- you have on the line from
`Kirkland & Ellis for the Petitioner, Greg Arovas and
`Christopher Mizzo. We'll both be splitting up to the various
`patents.
` And then also on the line from Samsung, we have Mr.
`Tim Jezek, Mr. Dan Girdwood. Also joining us from Korea,
`Mr. Justin Choi, and Mr. Il-sung Tuk [ph].
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay.
` MR. AROVAS: And that's everybody, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAISER: All right. Thank you. Anybody here on
`behalf of the Patent Owner?
` MR. MEUNIER: Yes, Your Honor. This is Bill Meunier
`from Mintz, here on behalf of the Patent Owner. With me are
`my partners, Matt Galica and Michael Newman. Mr. Galica will
`be handling the argument for the 182 IPR, which I believe
`we're starting with first.
` And Mr. Newman will be taking the second session.
`Also with us is -- on the line is Jim Doyle, who's helping us
`out with the presentation today.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Thank you very much.
` MR. MEUNIER: Thank you.
` JUDGE KAISER: All right. So the way we set this up
`in the hearing order, just to refresh everyone's memory, is
`that first we'll talk about case number 182. We've got 60
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`minutes total for that discussion, with each side having 30
`minutes.
` That discussion will start with PetitionerPetitioner's
`presentation, continue with Patent Owner's presentation, and
`then each party can reserve time out of that 30 minutes for
`its rebuttal, and we'll have the rebuttals after the opening
`presentations, again with Petitioner going first, and then
`concluding with Patent Owner.
` And after we've finished with the 182 case, we'll
`move on to the discussion of the other cases. That discussion
`has 120 minutes with each side having 60 minutes total, and
`we'll split that up the same way.
` Before we go any further, let me make sure I didn't
`get any of that wrong or -- and there are no objections to
`proceeding in that fashion. Petitioner, is that okay?
` MR. AROVAS: Yes. It is. That's our understanding.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. And then Patent OwnerPatent Owner?
` MR. MEUNIER: Yes. No objection.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. All right. And then just a few
`last reminders before we begin. First, neither party has said
`that there's any confidential information that's going to be
`discussed today.
` My understanding is that we have someone calling in
`on the public line, so please keep that in mind before you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`discuss any non-public information. I don't think there's any
`in the record, but if anything happens to come up, plea- --
`please be aware that there are potentially members of the
`public listening in.
` Second, the panel has access to all the
`demonstrative exhibits that each side filed as well as the
`entire record of all five proceedings, so please feel free to
`direct us to any portion of the record if you think that's
`helpful. If you're going to do so, please give us an exhibit
`number, and page, column, or line numbers as appropriate.
` And for demonstrav- -- demonstrative exhibits, when
`you're discussing them, please state o- -- out loud which
`slide you're discussing, not only because it helps us make
`sure we're on the same page as you, but also because it makes
`it clear a record, which will be more useful for our
`deliberations, and decision making.
` And then the last set of reminders here is just with
`respect to everyone appearing remotely by video, that
`presents different challenges than all being in the same room
`together. And so there's a decent chance that at some point
`during the proceeding, some of us will be talking over one
`another.
` I -- I think that's probably inevitable, but let's
`try to minimize that as much as possible, if for no other
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`reason than to make the reporter's job a little bit easier.
`And if possible, when you're not speaking, please keep your
`microphone muted, and when you do begin speaking, please
`identify yourself, again, to try to make a clearer record.
` So with that, I think we're ready to begin. So I'm
`not sure who's speaking first on behalf of Petitioner, Mr.
`Arovas, or Mr. Mizzo, but let me ask you collectively, how
`much time you'd like to reserve for rebuttal in the 182
`proceeding out of your 30 minutes.
` MR. AROVAS: Yes, Your Honor. This -- this is Greg
`Arovas. I'll be addressing the 182, and would appreciate to
`reserve 10 minutes.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. All right. So Mr. Arovas,
`you've got 20 minutes, and I'll -- I'll let you know when
`that time is up. I will try to give you some warning before -
`- beforehand but no promises there, and so you can begin when
`you're ready.
` MR. AROVAS: Well, thank you very much. So there --
`there are three grounds, and just to set the stage a little
`bit, I'm going to send -- spend most of my time on ground
`one, and make a -- a few comments as well on some of the key
`points on ground three. Ground two, I think from the
`briefing, it's pretty clear is entirely subsumed in the
`disputes of ground one, so there's nothing unique to address
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`with regard to ground one.
` Turning to -- to slide two, just to set the stage
`with the 068 patent, and a few of the key disclosures that
`are relevant to understanding the context of the prior art,
`first there's one and only one claim we have to deal with
`here.
` So I'll be talking about claim one, and that is the
`only claim in the patent that exists, as well as what's
`disputed. Slide three, gives some of the background of the
`068 patent.
` And I think what's significant here, and we see a --
`a -- a number of excerpts from Exhibit 1001, the 068 patent,
`is that the problem that's addressed by the 068 is really a -
`- a well-known problem that quantum dots, which are
`extensively used, need protection, or they're vulnerable to
`environmental stressors like oxygen or moisture.
` And significantly, whether you look at the known
`prior art disclosed in the background of the 068 or Dubrow,
`or Nelson, the two references relied on by the Petitioner,
`the solutions all are different ways of implementing the same
`thing, was basically some form of encapsulation or barrier
`between the quantum dots and the environment, you know, the
`sources of oxygen and moisture.
` Now, if we look at slide five on the left-hand side,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`you have claim one on the right-hand side, you got figure
`four which shows the process. The 068 particular approach
`that's claimed is to form an emulsion of first and second
`phases.
` Now what's important here is that the pricing
`language is used in the claim, so the emulsion is an emulsion
`of a phase one, and a phase two, or first phase and second
`phase material.
` And each of those phases separately comprise
`different substances that go into it. So, for example, a
`first and second polymer and quantum dots, but the disclosure
`within the 068 contemplates certainly other things or -- or
`substances being added as well. This is comprising language.
` The other thing I'd point out about the claim
`language itself is that, solids are in fact required to be
`included, and those are the quantum dots are one of the
`required elements of the comprising language.
` Then turning to slide six, the last of the
`background slides, is claim construction. And I think here,
`it's important to note that the -- the board in the
`institution decision did put forth the claim construction of
`the key term in this dispute, emulsion.
` The parties, and the -- the experts, and the
`depositions, and the briefing, both agree. The experts agreed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`that that is in fact the ordinary meaning, construction of
`the term emulsion.
` And I think what's telling as we go through the
`Patent OwnerPatent Owner's arguments here is, for the Patent Owner's
`distinctions of Dubrow to be accepted, we need to conclude
`that the use of the common ordinary meaning, well understood
`term, emulsion, is actually being used contrary to the
`ordinary meaning construction of the board.
` Contrary to what both experts have agreed is the
`ordinary meaning of emulsion in the art, to a person of skill
`in the art, and additionally would be a use of the term that
`as far as the record is concerned, and the experts who have
`searched for it, it would be a use of the term that's never
`been used in any of the record evidence.
` Nobody has ever used it that way in any reference
`article, other patent that's -- that's been cited in the
`record. So it would really be a somewhat unusual, pretty
`extreme situation for the term to be used in Dubrow in -- in
`such a fundamentally different way.
` So now, what I'd like to do is go through some of
`the -- the points in -- in Dubrow with regard to ground one.
`And turning to slide eight, starting with the problem, and
`the solution in the Dubrow disclosure, we see in Dubrow the
`exact same 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
` They're confronting the issue that quantum dots are
`vulnerable to environmental stressors, particularly oxygen
`and moisture, so the same stressors that the 0 -- that the
`068 talks about. And the solution is exactly the same
`solution that's claimed in the 068, which is to protect those
`quantum dots with a two phase emulsion that includes first
`and second polymers, quantum dots, as well as potentially
`other substances a- -- as well.
` And that's what we see in, for example, paragraphs
`125 and 188. You know, paragraph 125, discussing how the
`multiphase encapsulation will be impermeable to moisture and
`oxygen, the goals of the 068. And explicitly in paragraph 188
`of Dubrow which is Exhibit 1005, that it is a QD-APS-epoxy
`emulsion, so using the ordinary meaning term emulsion. Now, -
`-
` JUDGE KAISER: Mr. Arovas, can I interrupt you just
`for a moment. This is Judge Kaiser. The -- there's some
`possibility, I suppose, that paragraphs 125, and 188, and 187
`of Dubrow are -- are talking about different -- sorry.
` I'm blanking on the word, different embodiments. Is
`there any connection in Dubrow between them? I mean, is there
`any way that we can be sure that when it's talking about a
`QD-APS-epoxy emulsion in paragraph 187, for example, that
`that's also applicable to whatever mixture of quantum dots
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`APS and epoxy as in paragraph 125.
` MR. AROVAS: Ye- -- yes. Yes, Your Honor. I think
`it's -- it's explicitly connected. I think it's the only
`possibility. And so if you were to connect, let's say
`paragraph 128, which discusses the formation of the -- the
`QD-APS-epoxy using toluene -- toluene, and you look at all
`the different embodiments that exist, and then you go to
`paragraph 188.
` 188 specifically refers to a QD-APS-epoxy emulsion,
`okay? There are other embodiments certainly, like there's a
`PEI embodiment, right? But that's -- this is obviously
`not talking about that because it is explicitly calling out
`the constituent elements. And then if we go back through the
`disclosure, we'll see two things.
` One is 128 is the main disclosure of the QD-APS-
`epoxy embodiment, so there's a direct linguistic connection
`there. Also we see that it doesn't re- -- refer to let's say
`removal like paragraph 129 does of the solvent, which is a
`PEI embodiment, but it doesn't talk about that language.
` And instead it -- it -- it has a process consistent
`with performing or creating an emulsion, which is, is that
`spatial dis- -- distribution, and in- -- immiscible liquids,
`which then again ties exactly to the ordinary meaning of the
`notion.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
` So there's really kind of no other embodiment to
`point to, so it's explicitly in the disclosure connected
`together.
` So moving to -- and I think actually that if we look
`at slide 10, we'll see that the -- actually the connection of
`that evidence that Dubrow dis- -- you know, expressly
`discloses this due phase emulsion which is that combination
`of substances in 187, 188 and in 128.
` So if we look at the right-hand side of slide 10,
`you'll see that in 128, where it goes to the details of
`preparing that -- that combination of materials, it comments
`due to the immiscibility of APS in the epoxy, APS coded QDS
`are located in a spatial -- in spatial domains throughout the
`epoxy.
` That is a -- a -- a very clear disclosure of the
`microstructure of an emulsion. And then in 187, of course,
`it's talking about QD-APS-epoxy emulsions, the same thing as
`188. And significantly here too, because there's a discussion
`of the emulsion in the context of the first element where
`it's, what's created and in the deposition.
` 187 and 188 specifically referred to curing that
`emulsion which is post deposition, so all ties together very
`clearly. And moving to slide 11, if I could, what I'd like to
`do is respond to the Patent Owner's arguments in the briefs
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`on two levels.
` So first, that there are arguments made that are
`inconsistent with the express requirements of claim one, so
`therefore whether or not correct, and we do believe they're
`technically incorrect, it actually doesn't map to the result
`of this petition.
` And second, to talk about the technical correctness
`of some of those -- those positions, based on the express
`disclosure of Dubrow, as well as other record evidence that
`the -- the Petitioner has put in the record.
` So first point, this issue of is an APS -- is APS a
`solid alone at room temperature, and therefore, does that
`mean that the emulsion, the ordinary meaning of emulsion,
`that's discussed in Dubrow somehow doesn't apply?
` And so even if that were correct, and I'll show
`later why it's not correct based on Dubrow that APS and
`toluene is -- is a solid, it doesn't actually matter because
`if we look at, for example, slide 11, which has claim one as
`the -- the first bullet, we see that the claim requirement is
`actually a first and second phase, and uses comprising
`language to discuss the constituent elements, the required
`constituent elements of that first and second phase.
` So there is no exclusion of other components in the
`first phase or the second phase. And in fact, we know that 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`must include the first phase solids because the quantum dots
`themselves are solid, so there'd be no inconsistency there.
` So first point, the claim language is, the emulsion
`is formed of a first and second phase that are liquids under
`the ordinary meeting construction. And it -- the polymers
`themselves do not have to be liquids or entirely liquids.
` Second, it is admitted, nobody can test that toluene
`is in fact a liquid, and so putting the qu- -- quantum dots
`and APS in that will be a liquid that is undisputed. We go to
`slide 12, looking at some of the other record evidence.
` And again, this is -- this is not really disputed
`that for example, Exhibit 1029 and 1030, which are
`contemporaneous publications note that -- that the state of
`the phase one material would be determined by the solvent,
`not the solute.
` So the present of -- presence of solids in the
`liquid is not going to be disqualifying. And as we saw, it
`would in fact be required for the phase one material because
`the quantum dots themselves are solids, which is admitted on
`the right-hand side of slide 12 by Patent Owner's expert in
`Exhibit 1026, the expert deposition.
` Moving to slide 13, additionally addressing kind of
`this issue of APS as a solid and whether it matters or not.
`We -- if we look through the embodiments of the 068 patent,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`the 068 expressed and contemplates, not just the quantum dots
`as being solids, but lists a series of substances that can be
`used for this -- this phase one material.
` It includes polystyrene, which by admission of the
`expert correctly so, polystyrene is in fact also a solid at
`room temperature. And so it's clear that the first phase can
`include polystyrene, which is a solid, so again, consistent
`with the disclosure of the 068. And so if we go to slide 14 -
`-
` JUDGE FRANKLIN: Counsel? I'm sorry, counsel. This
`is -- this may be a minor point, but -- so are you saying, in
`other words, that although we're looking for a liquid, it can
`be a suspension, is essentially that what it is, it's a liquid
`suspension?
` MR. AROVAS: I -- I -- I think I want to make sure
`we don't get hung up on the word suspension. But I -- I think
`I -- I agree with you. So what I'm saying is that --
` JUDGE FRANKLIN: Because it -- it's a liquid that
`contains solid.
` MR. AROVAS: Right. So the --
` JUDGE FRANKLIN: And the solid is suspended in the
`liquid.
` MR. AROVAS: Yes. Yes. You still need the emulsion,
`right? Because that's the phase one phase two claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`requirement of the motion, but there can be solid suspended
`in the phase one liquid, or the phase two liquid.
` And in fact, we know from the claims, there's a
`requirement that quantum dots once solid are suspended in
`that liquid. But if -- whether there are other solids is not
`disqualifying in any way of whether the Dubrow disclosure
`meets the claim requirements of claim one.
` JUDGE FRANKLIN: And when I refer to suspension, I'm
`referring to the two separate phases.
` MR. AROVAS: That's right. I mean, there'll be a --
`an emulsion can be a suspension. And I think the patent
`owner's expert has a -- also agreed with that.
` JUDGE FRANKLIN: Okay.
` MR. AROVAS: So looking at slide 14, to put these
`pieces together, it has four different excerpts from Dubrow
`Exhibit 1005. And first, what do we know? We know it is a
`liquid in liquid combination of immiscible materials,
`expressly stated by Dubrow in paragraph 128.
` If we look at the first highlighted portion of box
`one, it says a matrix material, that's the epoxy, which is
`admitted to be a liquid, is added to the solvent mixture,
`which is the APS-QD-toluene combination, so you have a liquid
`in a liquid.
` Also we know that that produces in -- because of 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`immiscibility of the APS and the epoxy, that you have APS
`coded QDs in spatial domains throughout the epoxy, which is
`describing basically the suspension, Your Honor, that you
`pointed out to.
` It's a suspension with some solids, but in the form
`of a mi- -- emulsion microstructure. If we go just to the
`right, what do we know in paragraphs 187, also in 188? The
`same language that that is described pre-cure -- pre-cure as
`a QD-APS-epoxy emulsion using the ordinary meaning term
`emulsion.
` We know that that is what is deposited between on
`the barrier layers. We see that at the bottom in paragraph
`128 as well, and we know that if we go to 0.4 bottom left,
`also from Exhibit 10- -- 1005 Dubrow, that the two phase
`system upon curing, is created upon curing the QD-APS-epoxy
`emulsion.
` So we know it's an emulsion pre-cure, which is
`what's deposited on the barrier sheets. So this is exactly
`what is disclosed in claim one, and is all that's required.
`So this subst- -- substantiates the anticipation of claim
`one.
` As I mentioned before, this is using claim language
`of claim one ordinary meaning of emulsion and disclosure of
`Dubrow. Assuming some of the arguments made by the patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`owner, in fact, correct, what I would like to do is spend a
`little bit of time, and just note how some of those arguments
`are in fact incorrect.
` First, slide 15, does APS dissolve in toluene? The
`argument is made by Patent Owner, it does not. Well, if we
`look at the express disclosure of Dubrow, which is on page --
`slide 15 to the left-hand side, paragraph 128.
` We see that, it says there's a mixture of APS and
`toluene, right, to provide the APS coded QDs and a matrix --
`and a matrix material is added to the solvent mixture. But
`what do we know about the word solvent?
` A solvent, it's typically a liquid, but it's a
`substance that in which other substances would dissolve.
`There are only two things that are put into that solvent,
`APS, and QDs. We know the QDs don't.
` The only thing that Dubrow could be referring to as
`being solvated right, or -- or dissolved is the APS. So
`express disclosure which is confirmed by Dr. Moffitt, slide
`16, what else do we know?
` Well, we know that APS is almost all styrene groups.
`It's eight to one styrene. Dr. Swager, as well as
`contemporary references note that styrene will dissolve in
`toluene, and Dr. Moffitt commented that with the eight
`styrene groups or molecule or -- or components, it will
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
`dissolve, and in fact, the immune group will make it more
`soluble, as he points out in Exhibit 2034, his deposition
`page 24 lines seven to nine.
` Second point that's made by the Patent Owner is, and
`this is slide 17, even if APS is soluble in toluene, it
`becomes insoluble once it bonds to the quantum dots. That
`again is resolved by the Dubrow disclosure.
` If we look on the left-hand side of slide 17, you
`can see, paragraph 128 talks about a solvent mixture, which
`is the combination of QD-APS --Toluene, okay, which is after.
`So it's a solvent mixture after the QDs, and the APS was
`added.
` So that interaction has already occurred, and it's
`still described by Dubrow as a solvent mixture, which is
`confirmed by Dr. Moffitt, that the hydro- -- hydrophobic
`sections of the chain will extend into the toluene solvent to
`maintain their solvated state.
` We also know that APS is provided in excess, as we
`see in paragraphs 118 and 119, so there'll be APS bonded to
`the QDs, and APS in excess as well. Third, and I'll go one
`more --
` JUDGE KAISER: Mr. Arovas -- sorry. You're -- you're
`about to run into your rebuttal time which is fine, but we'll
`just take time out of your rebuttal, if you keep going.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
` MR. AROVAS: Thank you. Yep. I'll use just one more
`-- or two more minutes if I may, on this issue of evaporation
`slide 18. Evaporation is a well-known way of producing
`emulsions, Exhibit 1036 as well as to point out slide 19, the
`express disclosure of -- of Dubrow is residual solvent
`exists, which we see in paragraphs 132, and also 187.
` Of course, after the evaporation step is where 187
`describes it as emulsion. And if I can go to the second --
`third ground, I'm going to jump forward a little bit, and
`just make a couple of very quick points on the third ground.
` Moving to slide 27, ground three, which is Nelson in
`view of the teachings of Dubrow about emulsions. First, same
`problem. The problem is to protect QDs not the particular
`solution of creating an IPN or an emulsion.
` Second, same components. QDs, the same two polymers
`descr- -- described in the 068, as well as Dubrow and Nelson,
`the methacrylate, and epoxies. Third, most critically, is
`admitted by the experts that both the IPN and Dubrow are
`known techniques, known microstructures to be used.
` And so, as we see, for example, if we go forward to
`slide 31, in the Uber tax case, that when you have a
`situation relying on KSR, when you have a situation where it
`is known to in the art, that two or more known techniques can
`be used, it is not inventive.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00182 (Patent 9,680,068 B2)
`IPR2021-00183 (Patent 7,588,828 B2)
`IPR2021-00184 (Patent 7,803,423 B2)
`IPR2021-00185 (Patent 7,867,557 B2)
`IPR2021-00186 (Patent 8,524,365 B2)
`
` It's a design choice to pick one or the other. And
`that is the reason for this combination. Slides 28, 29 and
`30, I won't go through in detail, but they all address a
`question raised in the institution decision about the motive
`for combination.
` The IPN is admitted to be not as good as phase
`separated materials. The problem of defects as we see in
`slide 29, is obviated by using the emulsion because it is the
`thermal cure of the epoxy that causes the problem which is
`eliminated using an emulsion because the QDs are in the first
`phase, not the epoxy phase.
` In slide 30, there will be additional protection
`from using the emulsion over the IPN because the QDs will be
`entirely in
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
