`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CREE, INC.,
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-
`00687
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT CREE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`MATTER OF LAW UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 50(a)
`REGARDING INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,242,028 FOR
`STATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE MATTER ................ 1
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................... 1
`III. STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED ...................... 3
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................... 3
`A. Judgment as a Matter of Law ..................... 3
`B. Statutory Double Patenting ...................... 3
`V. ARGUMENT ............................................. 4
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................... 6
`
`
`i
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES
`In re Goodman,
`11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................... 4
`Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Lab’ys, S.A.,
`752 F. App’x 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................... 5
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
` 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ..................................... 4
`Russell v. Absolute Collection Servs., Inc.,
`763 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2014) ............................ 3
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................... 1, 3, 6
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) .................. 1, 3
`U.S. Patent No. 6,831,303 ............................ passim
`U.S. Patent No. 7,242,028 ............................ passim
`
`ii
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE MATTER
`Defendant Cree, Inc. (“Cree”) moves under Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law
`(“JMOL”) on the issue of the invalidity of U.S. Patent No.
`7,242,028 (“the ‘028 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`statutory double patenting.
`The asserted claims of the ‘028 patent have the same
`claim language as the asserted claims in the earlier issued
`U.S. Patent No. 6,831,303 (“the ‘303 patent”), with the
`exception that the claim phrase “solid state light sources”
`in the ‘028 patent claims replaced the phrase “light
`emitting devices” in the ‘303 patent claims. Because the
`claim phrase “solid state light sources” has the same scope
`as the claim phrase “light emitting diodes” (“LEDs”), the
`asserted claims of the ‘028 patent have the same scope as
`the asserted claims of the ‘303 patent. Accordingly, the
`asserted claims of the ‘028 patent are invalid under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 for statutory double patenting. The Court
`should thus grant JMOL in favor of Cree on this issue.
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The sole independent claim-at-issue of the ‘028 patent
`– claim 1 – has precisely the same words and limitations as
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`
`asserted dependent claim 2 of the ‘303 patent except that
`the ‘028 claim phrase “solid state light sources” replaces
`the claim phrase “light emitting diodes” in the ‘303
`patent. Compare ‘303 patent (PTX-0635) at claim 2 with
`‘028 patent (PTX-0631) at claim 1. The remaining
`limitations of asserted dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 14, and
`16 of the ‘028 patent have precisely the same language as
`corresponding claims 3-4, 6-9, 15, and 17-18 of the ‘303
`patent. Compare ‘303 patent (PTX-0635) with ‘028 patent
`(PTX-0631).
`The claim phrase “solid state light sources” does not
`appear at all in the ‘303 patent. The phrase also does not
`appear in the written description of the ‘028 patent. As a
`continuation of the ‘303 patent, the ‘028 patent has
`essentially the same written description as the ‘303
`patent.1 The phrase “solid state light sources” only
`appears in the claims of the ‘028 patent.
`
`
`1 The minor differences between the written
`descriptions of the ‘028 patent and the ‘303 patent do not
`relate to “solid state light sources.” Claim Construction
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, D.I. 152, at 1 n.1.
`2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED
`Whether, in light of the record evidence and the
`authority provided herein, no reasonable jury would have a
`legally sufficient evidentiary basis to rule in favor of
`Plaintiff OptoLum, Inc. (“OptoLum”) on the issue of the
`invalidity of the ‘028 patent for statutory double
`patenting.
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`A. Judgment as a Matter of Law
`Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where “a
`party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial
`and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a
`legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party
`on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); Russell v.
`Absolute Collection Servs., Inc., 763 F.3d 385, 391 (4th
`Cir. 2014).
`B. Statutory Double Patenting
`A central tenant of the United States Patent system is
`that an inventor is entitled to only one patent per
`invention to prevent extension of the patent monopoly. In
`the event that two patents issue having the same scope, the
`second patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`
`3
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`
`statutory double patenting. See in re Goodman, 11 F.3d
`1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“If the claimed inventions are
`identical in scope, the proper rejection is under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 because an inventor is entitled to a single patent
`for an invention.”).
`V. ARGUMENT
`The double patenting inquiry here is whether the scope
`of the ‘028 patent claim phrase “solid state light sources”
`is the same as the scope of the ‘303 patent claim phrase
`“light emitting diodes.” This is a question solely for the
`Court. Based on the record evidence in this matter, the
`answer to this question is, “Yes.”
`The intrinsic evidence for the ‘028 patent supports the
`assertion that the terms “solid state light sources” and
`“light emitting diodes” have the same claim scope. It is
`uncontested that the only description in the written
`description of both asserted patents concerns LEDs.2
`
`
`2 Cree moves concurrently under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 50(a) for judgment of invalidity of the ‘028
`patent because the only description of the claimed “solid
`state light sources” phrase is limited to LEDs.
`Accordingly, to the extent the phrase “solid state light
`sources” has a construction broader than “light emitting
`diodes” in the ‘303 patent, those claims of the ‘028 patent
`are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`4
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, the ‘028 patent contains a terminal
`disclaimer over the ‘303 patent. ‘028 patent (PTX-0631) at
`(*). That terminal disclaimer is intrinsic evidence that
`the Applicant for the ‘028 and ‘303 patents conceded that
`the claims of the patents have the same scope. See
`Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Lab’ys, S.A., 752 F. App’x
`1024, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A] terminal disclaimer is a
`strong clue that a patent examiner and, by concession, the
`applicant, thought the claims in the continuation lacked a
`patentable distinction over the parent.”).
`Further, in construing the phrase “solid state light
`sources,” the Court noted that there was no intrinsic
`evidence to explain the phrase. Claim Construction
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, D.I. 152, at 17.
`The extrinsic evidence also establishes that the terms
`“solid state light sources” and “light emitting diodes”
`have the same meaning. OptoLum’s own expert, Mr. York,
`asserted that the terms have the same scope. He is
`explicit: “Your testimony is that the scope of the ‘light
`emitting diodes’ and the scope of the phrase ‘solid state
`light sources’ is the same; is that right? Answer: Yes.”
`York Deposition Tr. 145:9-16 (emphasis added); see also
`5
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`
`York Claim Construction Deposition Tr. (12/1/2017)
`132:3-10.
`Moreover, OptoLum’s expert, Dr. Steigerwald, testified
`that “[s]olid state light sources were almost a colloquial
`term we use for LEDs often.” October 26th Unedited Tr.
`180:3-4.
`The record evidence is that “solid state light sources”
`means the same as “light emitting devices.” The intrinsic
`evidence is conclusive. No extrinsic evidence has been
`offered to alter that conclusion. There is no genuine
`issue of material fact that the terms have the same scope.
`Under these facts and circumstances, where all the
`claim limitations in the asserted claims of the ‘028 patent
`have precisely the same scope as the corresponding claims
`in the earlier issued ‘303 patent, the claims of the ‘028
`patent are invalid as a matter of law for statutory double
`patenting in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly,
`the Court should grant JMOL in favor of Cree on this issue.
`VI. CONCLUSION
`The Court should grant JMOL in favor of Cree as to the
`invalidity of the ‘028 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`statutory double patenting. There is no genuine issue of
`6
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`material fact, and Cree is entitled to judgment on this
`issue as a matter of law.
`Dated: November 8, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Blaney Harper
`Blaney Harper
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
`Telephone: (202) 879-3939
`Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
`Email: bharper@jonesday.com
`
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`NC State Bar No. 45647
`SAGE PATENT GROUP
`4120 Main at North Hills St.
`Suite 230
`Raleigh, NC, 27609
`Telephone: 984-219-3358
`Facsimile: (984) 538-0416
`Email: psiddoway@sagepat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Cree, Inc.
`
`7
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No.
`1:17-cv-00687
`
`
`
`v.
`CREE, INC.,
`Defendant.
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`I hereby certify that Defendant Cree, Inc.’s Renewed
`Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Under Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 50(a) Regarding Invalidity of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,242,028 for Statutory Double Patenting
`complies with the limitations set forth in Local Rule
`7.3(d) by not exceeding 6,250 words, including the body of
`the brief, headings and footnotes, but excluding the
`caption, signature lines, certificate of service, and cover
`page or index.
`
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on November 8, 2021, I
`electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
`for the United States District Court for the Middle
`District of North Carolina using the CM/ECF Filing System,
`which will send notification via electronic means to all
`counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`NC State Bar No. 45647
`SAGE PATENT GROUP
`4120 Main at North Hills St.
`Suite 230
`Raleigh, NC, 27609
`Telephone: 984-219-3358
`Facsimile: (984) 538-0416
`Email: psiddoway@sagepat.com
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-
`00687
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendant.
`)
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`Having considered Defendant Cree, Inc.’s Renewed Motion
`for Judgment As a Matter of Law Under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 50(a) Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No.
`7,242,028 for Statutory Double Patenting, the opposition
`thereto, and the reply, it is HEREBY ORDERED that
`Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`SIGNED this [] of November, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` __
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 337 Filed 11/08/21 Page 13 of 13
`
`