throbber
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`OptoLum, Inc.,
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`Cree, Inc.,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-
`00687
`
`I.
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO CREE, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW REGARDING ENSNAREMENT
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff OptoLum, Inc., (“OptoLum”) hereby provides its
`Opposition to Cree, Inc.’s (“Cree’s”) Renewed Motion for
`Judgment as a Matter Law regarding Ensnarement (“Motion”),
`Dkt. No. 354.
`Cree has not presented any single reference or
`combination of references that discloses each of the elements
`of OptoLum’s claim under the Doctrine of Equivalents (“DOE”).
`This Motion should be denied for this reason alone.
`Additionally, Cree’s Motion ignores the significant
`expert testimony that there would be no motivation to combine
`the Arndt and Cao references nor a reasonable expectation of
`1
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`

`

`success for this combination and entirely fails to address
`significant unrebutted evidence regarding objective indicia
`of non-obviousness. Therefore, Cree’s Motion should be
`denied.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`“Rule 50(b) permits a party to renew its Rule 50(a)
`motion post-trial, asserting the same grounds initially
`raised in the prior motion.” Lusk v. Virginia Panel Corp.
`2014 WL 3900325, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 11, 2014). A 50(b)
`motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, that is,
`assesses whether the claim should succeed or fail because the
`evidence developed at trial was insufficient as a matter of
`law to sustain the claim.” Belk v. Meyer Corp. U.S., 679 F.3d
`146, 155 (4th Cir. 2012).
`For a doctrine of equivalents theory, the range of
`equivalents asserted must not encompass or “ensnare” the
`prior art. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The purpose of
`the “ensnarement” inquiry is to ensure that a patentee not
`“obtain, under the doctrine of equivalents, coverage which he
`could not lawfully have obtained from the PTO by literal
`
`2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`

`

`claims.” Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs.,
`904 F.2d 677, 684 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is OptoLum’s burden to
`prove patentability of the DOE claim by a preponderance of
`the evidence. G. David Jang, M.D. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 872
`F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`In assessing the allegedly ensnared prior art, however,
`the Court “must apply standards of patentability consistent
`with
`our
`jurisprudence
`regarding
`anticipation
`and
`obviousness.” Conroy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570,
`1577 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1325
`(employing the Section 103 obviousness test as part of
`ensnarement inquiry).
`Patentability can be shown with proof of any of the
`following: (1) the allegedly ensnared combinations do not
`teach all limitations of the claim, (2) the proposed
`combination would not be obvious, or (3) the new art is not
`within the scope of equivalents. See Interactive Pictures
`Corp. v. Infinite Pictures, Inc., 274 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001) (finding no ensnarement where prior art was missing
`a claim element); DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1321 (finding no
`ensnarement where there was no motivation to combine). Merely
`
`3
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`

`

`presenting art within the scope of the equivalents is
`insufficient to prove ensnarement. See Conroy, 14 F.3d at
`1577 (vacating ensnarement ruling based only on a finding
`that equivalent element alone was disclosed in the prior art).
`To assess obviousness, the court must determine “the
`scope and content of the prior art”; “differences between the
`prior art and the claims at issue”; “the level of ordinary
`skill in the pertinent art”; and “[s]uch secondary
`considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved
`needs, failure of others, etc., [that] might be utilized to
`give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the
`subject matter sought to be patented.” Graham v. John Deer
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`Obviousness jurisprudence dictates that “a patent
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). Rather, one must “identify a reason
`that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed
`new invention does.” Id. “Such understandings about reasons
`
`4
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`

`

`to combine or countervailing reasons not to combine could
`come from the knowledge, skill, and creativity of the
`ordinarily skilled artisan.” See Arctic Cat Inc. v.
`Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017) (finding that potential safety concerns raised in
`prior art was a countervailing reason not to combine).
`III. ARGUMENT
`Cree presents the Court with a reductive version of the
`issues and the evidence while failing to address the glaring
`flaw in its own position. Taking the evidence as a whole,
`OptoLum has more than met its burden to prove that its DOE
`claim does not ensnare Cree’s proffered prior art combination
`and Cree’s Motion must be denied.
`In the first instance, Cree purports to incorporate each
`of its prior briefs regarding this issue by reference. This
`is inappropriate and should be disregarded. While it is true
`that the parties have briefed this issue extensively, each of
`Cree’s prior motions on this issue have been fully briefed,
`considered, and denied by this Court. Cree cannot now rehash,
`by virtue of incorporation by reference, each of these
`previous failed attempts and OptoLum cannot be expected to
`
`5
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`

`

`respond to each of Cree’s previous arguments again here. This
`Motion should be decided on the merits of the present
`arguments alone.
`Cree also asserts that OptoLum’s previous briefing on
`this issue has “narrowed” the question before the Court. This
`is not the case. The ensnarement enquiry remains whether
`OptoLum’s asserted DOE claim would be patentable over the
`prior art. The answer remains assuredly, yes. In fact, the
`questions before the Court at this time have been narrowed by
`Cree itself. Cree initially presented three combinations
`that it alleged were ensnared but because Cree’s expert Dr.
`Bretschneider ultimately admitted during the ensnarement
`hearing that the combinations relying on the Abdelhafez
`reference did not disclose heat dissipation protrusions on
`the outer surface, Cree is left with just one combination
`that it contends renders OptoLum’s DOE claim obvious, Arndt
`+ Cao.1 Because OptoLum has met its burden to show that its
`
`1 Cree has never contended that any single reference,
`including either Arndt or Cao, discloses each of the elements
`of the OptoLum DOE claim.
`
`6
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`

`

`DOE claim would be patentable over the Arndt + Cao combination,
`Cree’s Motion must be denied.
`A.
`THE COMBINATION OF ARNDT + CAO DOES NOT DISCLOSE
`EACH ELEMENT OF OPTOLUM’S DOE CLAIM
`According to Cree, the combination of the Arndt reference
`with the multi-chip packages purportedly disclosed by the Cao
`reference, discloses each element of OptoLum’s DOE claim.2
`Cree’s Motion is entirely focused on the element “heat
`dissipation protrusions on the outer surface” that it
`contends are disclosed by the LEDs of the Arndt reference.
`Cree, however, never addresses the glaringly obvious problem
`with this contention: in the combination of Arndt + and Cao,
`the LEDs of Arndt have been replaced by the Cao package, which
`Dr. Bretschneider admits does not have heat dissipation
`protrusions. In fact, Dr. Bretshneider confirmed during his
`testimony during the ensnarement hearing that this
`combination does not disclose heat dissipation protrusions on
`the outer surface. Ensnarement Hearing, October 7, 2021
`
`2 As stated throughout trial on this matter, OptoLum’s DOE
`claim replaces the LED of the Asserted Claims with “LED chips
`and their surrounding infrastructure” and each remaining
`element remains the same.
`7
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`

`

`Transcript (“Ensnarement Tr.”) at 202:8-24. This is reason
`enough to deny Cree’s Motion.
`Furthermore, while Cree’s Motion is focused exclusively
`on whether the Arndt reference discloses heat dissipation
`protrusions on the outer surface, its proposed combination
`also does not disclose the element “LED chips and their
`surrounding infrastructure” including a thermally conductive
`back. As Dr. Steigerwald testified, Cao fails to include
`sufficient disclosure for a person of ordinary skill in the
`art (“POSA”) to conclude that the multi-chip package has a
`thermally conductive backside. See Ensnarement Tr. 50:18-51:9.
`Therefore, even if one assumes that the Arndt reference
`alone does disclose heat dissipation protrusions on the outer
`surface of the ETCM, and as will be discussed below it does
`not, the combination proffered by Cree removes the structure
`that it contends discloses this element,3 and the Cao package
`
`3 Dr. Bretschneider also testified that, even though this
`element is not disclosed in this combination that the addition
`of such protrusions was “well within the capability” of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Tr. at 202:24-203:2.
`Such unsubstantiated “gap fillers” do not play an appropriate
`role in a prior art analysis. See, e.g., DSS Tech. Mgt., Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374-78 (Fed. Cir.
`2018)(rejecting reliance on “ordinary creativity” “as a
`wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary
`8
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`

`

`used in its place does not disclose either heat dissipation
`protrusions or a multi-chip package with a thermally
`conductive back. Because Cree’s proffered combination does
`not disclose each element of OptoLum’s DOE claim, its Motion
`must fail. See, e.g. Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite
`Pictures, Inc., 274 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding
`no ensnarement where prior art combination was missing a claim
`element).
`B.
`THE ARNDT REFERENCE DOES NOT DISCLOSE HEAT
`DISSIPATION PROTRUSIONS ON THE OUTER SURFACE
`While clearly irrelevant in light of the fact that the
`Arndt LED package does not appear in the combination proffered
`by Cree, it must also be noted that there is no structure on
`the outer surface of the Arndt reference that meets the
`definition of heat dissipation protrusions as construed by
`this Court.4 It is well established that the USPTO examiner
`actually found the ‘028 Patent patentable due to Arndt’s
`
`support,” particularly “when dealing with a limitation
`missing from the prior art references specified”) (quoting
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 83 F.3d 1355, at 1362, 1366
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`4 “Heat dissipation protrusion” has been construed to mean
`“projection from a surface designed to convect heat.”
`9
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`

`

`dissipation
`heat
`outer-surface
`disclose
`to
`failure
`protrusions, see Ensnarement Tr. at 199:11-15, and contrary
`to Cree’s contention, there is absolutely no evidence that
`the electrical leads from the LEDs in Arndt are designed to
`convect heat. It is more than clear that the LED leads that
`Cree contends are heat dissipation protrusions are designed
`to conduct heat to the metal of the elongate member, not
`convect heat to air. In fact, the experts from both sides
`agreed that the purpose of the leads of Arndt, in addition to
`electrical conduction, was cathodic cooling, (i.e. cooling
`via conduction, not convection, through the leads) and that
`nothing in the specification of the Arndt reference would
`indicate to a POSA that these leads were designed to convect
`heat. Ensnarement Tr. at 97:1-24; 203:21-204:3.
`Even though Dr. Bretschneider admitted that there was
`nothing in the reference indicating that these leads were
`designed to convect, he nevertheless insisted that the mere
`presence of air surrounding the leads (in the rudimentary
`drawings of the Arndt specification) would necessarily result
`in convection, and this was sufficient to disclose
`protrusions designed to convect. Ensnarement Tr. at 201:14-
`
`10
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`

`

`15. This conclusion is particularly suspect considering the
`fact that he was shown to have purposefully taken inconsistent
`positions regarding this element on the Abdelhafez reference
`during the ensnarement hearing and then at trial. See, e.g.,
`Trial Transcript, Nov. 5, 2021 at 117:19-121:7 (Dr.
`Bretschneider providing inconsistent testimony on whether
`prior art reference disclosed a structure “designed to
`convect” heat).
`Furthermore, Dr. Bretschneider’s argument that that the
`inherent ability to convect is sufficient to meet this claim
`element is inconsistent with his own testimony with respect
`to the “configured to conduct” element, which is similarly
`construed as “specifically designed to”. In his testimony
`regarding this element, he argued that the “purpose” of
`features that OptoLum identified as meeting this limitation
`was relevant to whether they were “designed” for convection.
`[S]everal
`features
`are
`specifically
`for
`manufacturing to allow you to build this at a low
`cost, to be able to manufacture here in the United
`States. And those are the features that have been
`pointed out as contributing to convective
`dissipation. That's not the purpose of the features.
`That is not how the bulb was designed.
`
`11
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`

`

`Trial Tr. Nov. 5, 2021 at 20:11-21. The Court should disregard
`Dr. Bretschneider’s internally inconsistent positions
`regarding what is sufficient to meet a claim term. Having
`testified that the “purpose” of a structure is relevant to
`whether it met the “designed to convect” element, he cannot
`credibly argue that this element is met in the Arndt reference
`by the operation of physics alone.
`Finally, neither Dr. Steigerwald nor Mr. York — who have
`a combined 50 years of LED package design and LED lighting
`system design experience — have ever heard of anyone claiming
`that the electrical leads of a surface-mounted LED were
`“designed to convect” as Dr. Bretschneider argues. See Tr.
`226:16-227:1, 228:4-7. The Court should credit the testimony
`of Mr. York and Dr. Steigerwald over the testimony of Dr.
`Bretschneider, especially in light of Dr. Bretshneider’s
`damaged credibility.
`C.
`THERE IS NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE OR REASONABLE
`EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS FOR THE ARNDT + CAO
`COMBINATION
`In addition to failing to disclose elements of OptoLum’s
`DOE claim, which should be fatal, Cree’s Motion ignores the
`substantial evidence that a POSA would not be motivated to
`
`12
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`

`

`combine, nor have a reasonable expectation of success in the
`combination of the Arndt and Cao references.
`A POSA would simply not be motivated to use the Cao
`multi-chip package—which has no disclosure regarding its
`environmental tolerances and requirements—in the Arndt
`automotive light. Ensnarement Tr. 95:21-96:4, 101:5-15. A
`POSA is not an LED package engineer, so he or she would not
`know from Cao’s sparse disclosure whether the multi-chip
`packages were fit for service in an outdoor environment. Id.
`at 96:18-25. In fact, given that Arndt already use LEDs rated
`for automotive applications, there is substantial motivation
`not to use an untested and unproven substitute. See id. at
`101:5-15, 230:20-231:4; See also Arctic Cat Inc. v.
`Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017) (“Evidence suggesting reasons to combine cannot be
`viewed in a vacuum apart from evidence suggesting reasons not
`to combine.”).
`Finally, there would not be a reasonable expectation of
`successfully using the Cao package in the structure of Arndt
`without undue experimentation, as Cao teaches none of the
`information a POSA would need to make use the purported multi-
`
`13
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`

`

`chip package. Ensnarement Tr. 95:5-20. A POSA, who as noted
`above is not an LED package engineer, could not be expected
`to be successful without the pertinent information
`customarily provided in a datasheet, which Cao lacks. Id. at
`96:2-7. Further, Cao lacks any teaching that its multi-chip
`packages are compatible with the flexible circuit board of
`Arndt, so a POSA would have no reasonable expectation of
`success in wrapping the circuit board around Arndt’s tubular
`member. Id. at 100:3-101:4. Therefore, even if the proffered
`combination did disclose each of the elements of OptoLum’s
`DOE claim, OptoLum has shown by a preponderance of evidence
`that there was no motivation to combine these references.
`D.
`OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS SUPPORT DENIAL
`OF CREE’S MOTION
` Finally, Cree’s Motion also ignores objective indicia
`of non-obviousness, which are a required consideration in any
`obviousness analysis, including the analysis regarding
`ensnarement. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that “[b]y
`failing to account for objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`[Defendant’s expert’s] analysis
`was incomplete”); DePuy
`
`14
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`

`

`Spine, 567 F.3d at 1328 (finding that secondary
`considerations supported the finding of no ensnarement.)
`Through the testimony of OptoLum’s inventor Mr. Joel Dry,
`co-founder Karen Baker, as well as Mr. York, OptoLum adduced
`unrefuted evidence of industry praise for the OptoLum
`prototype, which the Parties agree embodies the Asserted
`Patents. Such industry praise is exactly the type of objective
`indicia of non-obviousness that must be considered in any
`determination of patent validity. OptoLum inventor and
`founder Joel Dry and co-founder Karen Baker both testified
`that the industry leading designer of high-power LEDs,
`Lumileds, chose to exhibit the OptoLum prototype in the
`Lumileds booth at two prominent lighting conventions in 2003
`as an example of cutting edge technology using Lumileds’ LEDs.
`See Oct. 26, 2021 Tr. at 44:8-45:6; 47:18-49:17; 130:15-
`132:3. OptoLum’s expert Mr. York testified that Lumileds’
`recognition of OptoLum’s prototype, which embodies the
`Asserted Patents, was an example of industry praise and
`supported his determination that the Asserted Patents were
`not obvious. Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at 140:4-142:16. Significantly,
`Cree did not introduce any evidence that either rebutted or
`
`15
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`

`

`contradicted OptoLum’s witnesses regarding this objective
`indicia of non-obviousness. This is additional strong
`support for the patentability of OptoLum’s DOE claim.
`Therefore, OptoLum has more than met its burden to show that
`its DOE claim would have been patentable over the prior art.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Cree, Inc.’s Renewed Motion
`For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Regarding Ensnarement should
`be DENIED.
`
`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Leah R. McCoy
`Leigh J. Martinson
`Leah R. McCoy
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 449-6593
`Facsimile: (617) 607-9200
`Email: lmccoy@mccarter.com
`
`/s/ Jacob S. Wharton
`Jacob S. Wharton
`NC State Bar No. 37421
`WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
`One West 4th Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`Telephone: (336) 747-6609
`Facsimile: (336) 726-6985
`
`16
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`

`

`Email: jacob.wharton@wbd-
`us.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`OptoLum, Inc.
`
`17
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION UNDER L.R. 7.3(D)
`Under the provisions of L.R. 7.3(d), I certify that the
`forgoing Memorandum is 2,954 words, less than the 6,250
`permitted by the Local Rules.
`
`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:/s/ Leah R. McCoy
`Leah R. McCoy
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 449-6593
`Facsimile: (617) 607-9200
`
`18
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 359 Filed 12/30/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket