`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00885, Paper No. 28
`June 8, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, May 12, 2016
`
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`May 12, 2016, at 12:00 p.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMANDA K. STREFF, ESQ.
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`
`
`71 South Wacker Drive
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`
`312-782-0600
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM J. BARROW, ESQ.
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`202-263-3154
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`571-765-7708
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(12:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: On the record. This is the
`hearing for IPR2015- 00885 between Petitioner, LG Display,
`and Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation, involving claims
`4, 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent 7,202,843.
`Per the April 27th order each party will have 30
`minutes of total time to present arguments. Petitioner, you
`will present first with respect to your case, the challenged
`claims and grounds and, thereafter, Patent Owner will give a
`response and, Petitioner, you can reserve rebuttal time.
`Before we get started -- and we may not have a
`hearing here today -- I would like to ask counsel for both
`parties a few questions.
`As the parties are aware, on February 26, 2016 in
`IPR2015- 00021, the same claims at issue in this proceeding
`were held to be unpatentable in the 00021 proceeding.
`Patent Owner indicated on May 5, after we had
`already scheduled this hearing, that the time to file an appeal
`of our decision in the 00021 proceeding had expired.
`So the Panel is wondering where that leaves us
`with respect to this proceeding. So I will direct that to you,
`first, Patent Owner.
`MR. BARROW: Actually I'm Petitioner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Oh, you're Petitioner.
`
`
`
`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
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`MR. BARROW: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm
`sorry I didn't see that. Usually you are switched the other
`way. And if you could introduce yourself, too, for the record.
`MR. BARROW: Sure. Bill Barrow from Mayer
`Brown on behalf of LG Display. And with me is Amanda
`Streff, also from Mayer Brown.
`Your Honor, so as you may recall, there was a call
`between the parties on April 5th regarding Patent Owner's
`request to file a motion to terminate in view of the Sharp
`Proceeding and during that call Your Honor mentioned that the
`proper procedural mechanism for disposing of this case would
`be to file a request for adverse judgment.
`And after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal
`passed, frankly, that's what we expected Patent Owner to do.
`We actually reached out to Patent Owner and asked them if
`they would be filing that request. They stated that they would
`not be, but that instead they would be filing updated
`mandatory notices.
`We waited to see what they included in those
`notices, and it merely stated that the deadline had passed.
`Our position at this point is that the proper
`procedural mechanism is to file the request for adverse
`judgment. Frankly, we don't understand why they have not
`filed that request, and seeing as how this hearing is still on the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`schedule we are here to present our substantive arguments for
`why the claims are unpatentable and to see if the Board has
`any questions about our substantive case.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Patent
`Owner, if you could also introduce yourself and answer that
`question that I posed earlier.
`MR. HELGE: Absolutely, Your Honor. Good
`afternoon. Wayne Helge for Patent Owner, Surpass Tech
`Innovation.
`Your Honor, as you correctly noted, we did file the
`updated mandatory notices. Claims 4, 8 and 9 have effectively
`been rendered unpatentable and property rights extinguished as
`to those claims.
`Our point of view is that there is no case or
`controversy. I recognize that Petitioner is seeking a request
`for adverse judgment. Patent Owner does not intend to request
`adverse judgment. We simply believe that there are no
`property rights to adjudicate any more. There is simply no
`case or controversy.
`So, frankly, Your Honor, I have no presentation
`today. I would simply like to reserve obviously the right to
`address, as we mentioned on the phone call back in April, the
`claims that have not been adjudicated in the next hearing, on
`the 863 case, Your Honor.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So you won't present
`arguments today?
`MR. HELGE: I do not have any arguments, no,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. All right. So you are
`not going to do anything else then in that 21 proceeding?
`MR. HELGE: No, Your Honor. That case is
`concluded.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So I think what we are
`going to do, in due course, within the next day or so, we're
`going to issue an order to show cause, for Patent Owner to
`show cause why we should not enter judgment in this case
`without a final written decision.
`In other words, it would be just a short order
`entering judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims
`4, 8 and 9 based on the finality of the same patent claims in
`that related 21 case.
`So having said that, we will give you 10 days from
`that order to respond. You can either not respond, which we
`would construe as you are giving up, or if you do show, you
`know, we will weigh that and figure out what to do from there.
`MR. HELGE: Understood, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So given that, Petitioner, do
`you still wish to present today?
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`MR. BARROW: Yes, Your Honor. We would like
`the opportunity to present if the Board will allow it. We are
`prepared to do so.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. You have 30 minutes
`and obviously you don't have rebuttal time because they are
`not going to present. So you may proceed.
`MR. BARROW: Thank you, Your Honor. So this
`Board instituted review of claims 4, 8 and 9 as anticipated in
`view of the Lee reference. Claim 4 is the independent claim
`that has several limitations but really only the last two
`limitations are at issue here.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Lee discloses
`the remaining limitations. Similarly, they have not disputed
`that the additional limitations recited in claims 8 and 9 are
`covered by the Lee reference.
`So I'm going to jump right ahead to slide 23, which
`recites the -- which shows the generating step. If I may just
`provide a brief overview of what Lee discloses, it is basically
`directed to the same goal as the '843 patent.
`The '843 patent discloses that the response time of
`the pixel, known as the time it takes a pixel to respond to an
`applied voltage to twist in order to allow the requested amount
`of light to actually pass through that pixel in order to achieve
`a certain gray level, that that affects the quality of an image.
`The '843 patent explains that blurring may occur as a result.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`Lee essentially discloses the same thing. It talks
`about dragging occurring in the event that the voltage signal
`does not reach the target value within a certain time period.
`So what Lee proposes is applying a high voltage signal, a high
`data impulse in order to drive the pixel harder.
`And so as shown here in figure 12 in the first
`subframe, N+, that impulse is applied, but it is a high signal so
`we actually end up overshooting the target value which is
`designated by this horizontal line here. And so because we
`have overshot the target value, we have to drive that voltage
`back down. We have to pull it back.
`And the way we do that is we apply another
`voltage, another signal. And the Lee reference refers to this
`as rollback. So we roll the voltage back down. And this
`occurs in the second subframe.
`And this disclosure essentially reads on the next
`step as well. Additionally I will point out Lee also discloses
`that these voltages are actually applied to the data line which
`is necessary in order to actually obtain the image.
`I will point out that Patent Owner in this
`proceeding has argued that the phrase "to control a
`transmission rate" requires overdriven data in both subframes,
`and I understand that in the Sharp proceeding this Board
`determined that that interpretation was incorrect. But
`regardless --
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I ask you a question real
`
`quickly?
`
`MR. BARROW: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Did they present any arguments
`in this case that were different from those that were presented
`in the Sharp case?
`MR. BARROW: With respect to this claim
`construction issue?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Claim interpretation.
`MR. BARROW: I don't believe so, Your Honor. I
`believe on that issue of claim construction this Board's ruling
`is controlling here.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. BARROW: That said, Lee anticipates -- it
`anticipates claim 4 under both interpretations of the applying
`step.
`
`And the reason for that is, if we jump ahead,
`looking at slide 29, the specification provides a very clear
`definition of overdriving. It states that overdriving means
`applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal
`molecules.
`So the signal can be high or low. So this is the --
`this shows a comparison of figure 6 of the '843 patent and
`Lee's figure 12, and they are nearly identical. The only
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`difference is that in the second subframe in Lee we have a
`lower signal, and in figure 6 we have a higher signal.
`But according to the specification's definition of
`overdriving, what is going on in both of the second subframes
`is overdriving. So regardless of the interpretation Lee
`anticipates. And I think it is abundantly clear that in each of
`these instances at the very least we have two signals applied.
`It is very clear from the figures, Your Honor.
`If I may briefly address a few of Patent Owner's
`arguments. As a preliminary matter, Patent Owner has
`essentially mischaracterized our argument. They contend that
`Lee cannot anticipate claim 4 because it does not disclose
`overshooting in the second subframe.
`Now, first, that presupposes that overdriving and
`overshooting are the same thing, which we have never
`contended. This is very clear from our petition, our reply,
`evidence submitted through our expert. The relationship
`between overdrive and overshooting is that you have the
`overdriven pulse, so you apply the voltage, and that results in
`overshooting. So that's the relationship. One causes the
`other. They are not equal to one another.
`And then in the second subframe we apply a second
`negative voltage in this instance to achieve the rollback. And
`both experts agree this is how -- this is what is happening in
`Lee.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`Dr. Zech explained in his deposition -- this is from
`our reply at the bottom left of slide 31 -- he stated: So you
`need to apply a negative voltage to bring that back down and
`that's what he means by rolling back.
`Similarly, Mr. Bohannon stated in his declaration,
`when discussing Lee, he said: A signal is applied that returns
`the pixel transmission rate to the target value.
`So he agrees that a second signal is necessary.
`And that's the signal that pushes the voltage back down.
`And I will also point out, because there has been a
`little bit of debate about what transmission rate means and
`transmission and all of that, in that statement Mr. Bohannon
`equates transmission and transmission rate. He is discussing
`transmission rate in the context of Lee, which refers to the
`amount of light that is passing through the pixel.
`Patent Owner also argues that -- and I'm not sure I
`quite understand this argument -- but they argue that Lee
`doesn't depict application of specific voltages.
`As a preliminary matter, Lee employs the same
`method of describing, explaining and showing what is going
`on and what is happening to the pixel as the '843 patent. They
`use the exact same terminology and figures. They plot
`transmission versus frame. And there is a direct correlation
`between transmission and voltage. And so the implication in
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`both figures is that two data impulses have been applied in
`each of these instances.
`So, in summary, regardless of the interpretation of
`the applying step of claim 4, Lee anticipates claims 4, 8 and 9
`of the '843 patent.
`If the Panel has any questions I would be happy to
`answer them.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BARROW: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: All right. We are adjourned.
`We will start the second hearing at 1 o'clock because that's
`what we told the public. So we won't start early. Thank you.
`(Whereupon at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was
`adjourned.)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`
`
`12