throbber

`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED (MCO),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases:
` IPR2016-01610 (Patent 8,454,186 B2)
`IPR2016-01612 (Patent 8,454,187 B2)
`IPR2016-01613 (Patent 9,044,056 B2)
`IPR2016-01615 (Patent 8,936,379 B2)
`IPR2016-01616 (Patent 8,936,379 B2)
`IPR2016-01617 (Patent 8,936,379 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 15, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT A. ANGLE, ESQUIRE
`CHRISTOPHER J. FORSTNER, ESQUIRE
`ALEXIS SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
`Troutman Sanders
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, Virginia 23219
`
`and
`
`JASON D. EISENBERG, ESQUIRE
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`LARINA ALTON, ESQUIRE
`Fox Rothschild, LLP
`Campbell Mithum Tower
`222 South Ninth Street
`Suite 2000
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3338
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, December
`
`15, 2017, commencing at 10:07 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE SAINDON: I am Judge Saindon. With me here is Judge
`Parvis. And Judge Plenzler is there. He is remoting in from the Detroit
`office, so he can see you through the monitor behind me looking at the
`podium. He can't see what's on the screen.
`This hearing is for a host of cases, IPR2016-1610, involving the
`'186 patent to which 1609 and 800 are joined; IPR2016-1612 involving the
`'187 patent and the 1611 and 801 IPRs; 1613 involving the '056 patent and
`the 802 IPR; and then 1615, 1616 and 1617 all involving the '379 patent.
`So we put all of the hearings together today. We have for the case
`in chief, I believe, 90 minutes per side to which, petitioner, you will go first
`and last. Your rebuttal time is limited to responding to what patent owner
`says today. Then we'll have a break for lunch and then come back for the
`motion to amend. We'll have 45 minutes a side again, again, beginning and
`ending with petitioner. We may take a break sometime this morning
`depending on how things go.
`This is a public forum, so anything that is said is spoken in a public
`forum and disclosed. So we generally don't allow objections, but if
`somebody is starting to say something that is protected material, whether it's
`the judges or any other party, feel free to raise a hand. We'll try to note that.
`Let me see if there's any other administrative stuff to take care of.
`I think that's it. Let's do introductions. We'll start with patent owner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`MS. ALTON: Your Honor, thank you. I'm Larina Alton here on
`behalf of patent owner. This is Luke Toth. Johnny Chen, the inventor, is
`also here today.
`JUDGE SAINDON: And petitioner?
`MR. ANGLE: Good morning, Your Honor. Robert Angle on
`behalf of the petitioner. With me are Jason Eisenberg, Chris Forstner,
`Alexis Simpson, as well as Lauren Ulrich in the back. We all will be having
`a little part, as I'll explain in a moment, if that's all right with the Board.
`And Alex Rinnik is going to help, hopefully, keep us on track from a
`technological perspective.
`JUDGE SAINDON: And petitioner, since you are going first, you
`can stay up there or introduce whoever is going to be presenting today.
`MR. ANGLE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE SAINDON: If you like, I can put your time on the clock,
`so if you want to reserve some time for rebuttal now.
`MR. ANGLE: That would be great. We would like to reserve
`about an hour.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. You may begin when ready.
`MR. ANGLE: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Board,
`let me start first by thanking you for the significant amount of time that you
`have invested in this case and will be in the future. It may not surprise you
`to learn that when we were preparing for today's proceedings and speaking
`with our trial tech person, he told us there were about 75,000 pages of
`documents between all the exhibits and the pleadings that have been filed 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`this matter. It's truly a voluminous record. And to say that it's voluminous
`would really be an understatement.
`As your order directed on argument, we are going to try and focus
`on a couple issues that we think are really significant to the Board and the
`issues that need to be decided here today. No single person can know every
`argument, paper, pleading or anything that's been filed in this matter. So
`with the Board's indulgence, we are going to divide up the arguments a little
`bit so that we have different people addressing some of the different issues.
`Specifically how we would like to proceed, if we can go to slide 2,
`this is just an overview to show you what's coming. I'll use about the first 20
`to 30 minutes providing an overview of the case, a little bit of background
`and like I said, what we think are the critical arguments from the patent
`owner's perspective. We would like to reserve an hour. Alexis Simpson or
`I, in rebuttal, will address the '186 issues. Chris Forstner will address the
`'379 issues and Jason Eisenberg will address the '056. And if any issues
`relating to motions to exclude come up, we'll address those.
`When we get to the motions to amend in the afternoon, Alexis
`Simpson will provide an overview and will address some of the '186 and
`'187 issues. Jason Eisenberg again will address '056 and Chris Forstner,
`'379.
`
`Before I jump into the argument, I wanted to give just one or two
`more opening comments. One is I'll be referring to slide decks, both ours
`and patent owner's. And for the record, I'll try and keep that clear and
`identify which slide I'm turning to. We don't have any intention of using all
`of the slides, trust me on that. In addition, I'll try and make sure that Judge
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`Plenzler can follow along because he won't be able to see the slides that we
`are talking about.
`In addition, any references to the record, the specification, unless I
`say otherwise, I mean to refer to the 1610 matter and the '186 patent. So
`with that, I'll go ahead and jump right in.
`Turning to slide 3, this helps illustrate briefly the background of
`the artificial Christmas tree industry. As early as 1903 with the Zahl patent,
`patents have been issued on artificial Christmas trees with internal wiring,
`trunk sections and light strings. One thing common to all artificial
`Christmas trees back then and even today is that they are decorative lighting
`that is used during a certain part of the year and they have to be put up, taken
`down and stored. And so since the beginning, inventors, when they have put
`together patents, they have tried to offer inventions that helped to address the
`need to assemble, disassemble and store.
`Turning to slide 4, this shows almost from the outset inventors
`look for ways to have electrical wires travel through the trunks rather than
`on the outside. This was both for reasons of safety, appearance and ease of
`assembly. As early as 1928 with the Harris patent we had internal wires
`going through the trunk sections and we had electrical connectors between
`those trunk sections. Inventors used various different types of connectors.
`As we can see here from the screw-in type of Corina all the way to the
`coaxial connector of Otto.
`Turning to slide 5, the evolution of connectors in artificial
`Christmas trees was just like the evolution of connectors in other electrical
`
`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
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`products from the screw-in of Edison to the socket and coaxial connectors of
`McLeish. After all, artificial Christmas trees are just decorative lighting.
`So let me turn and talk about the patents that bring us here today.
`Turning to slide 6, the Willis patents are what bring us here today. They
`were filed by Mr. Chen, who is Willis' present CEO. He is here today.
`Willis and Mr. Chen are relatively new to the artificial Christmas tree
`market. They first started making artificial Christmas trees in about 2008.
`Soon thereafter, Mr. Chen started filing patent applications.
`The '186, '187 and '379 patents are all of the same family from the
`'751 provisional application. The '056 is in a different family that is very
`closely related and shares much of the same specification. And in fact,
`Figure 2 shown on the slide is in all four patents. Boiled down, the
`purported invention involves a combination of four basic elements, trunk
`portions with internal wiring, joint branches, attached light strings and
`multi-positional connectors.
`Turning to slide 7, patent owner really does not dispute that each
`of these four elements existed in the prior art. Indeed, the '186 specification
`specifically discusses the Harris patent's trunk portions with internal wiring,
`the Smith patent's joined branches and attached light strings that were
`common to many artificial Christmas trees.
`Turning to slide 8, multi-positional connectors were also
`something that was available in the prior art at the time of the invention. As
`Mr. Chen testified during his deposition, the connector he chose to use
`between the trunk sections is one of 10 different connectors available from
`vendors in a vendor database that he had available to him. 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
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`figures, as shown on the right side of slide 8, are just detailed drawings of
`the connectors that he found in the market. So there's no dispute that
`connectors were available in the prior art, and patent owner does not contend
`that the connectors themselves are particularly novel or the inventive feature.
`JUDGE SAINDON: So counsel, let me ask you about that. You
`mentioned that the coaxial-type connections were known. I'm going back to
`your slide 4 where you have the Christmas trees there. Now, am I correct in
`saying that only Otto had a coaxial-type connector?
`MR. ANGLE: Well, Otto is the reference we rely on primarily for
`the coaxial-type connector, at least for the inspiration of it. It's not the only
`one. There were others. I believe that Pritza, as you can see there, is
`coaxial. That's the one I see at least here that's a coaxial-type connector.
`But in addition, the coaxial-type connectors obviously existed outside of just
`Christmas tree art. And as we'll talk about in a little bit, we believe the field
`of endeavor is broader than just the narrow field of artificial Christmas trees.
`JUDGE SAINDON: But as far as these connectors that you say on
`slide 8 that he went out to different vendors, I mean, those were just coaxial
`connectors. Were there any application?
`MR. ANGLE: Right. They were just regular coaxial cables you
`can get on the market. Exactly right, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Did you submit any of those as prior art?
`MR. ANGLE: I'm sorry, did we submit any of those as prior art?
`JUDGE PARVIS: The ones you say he went out to buy those, but
`those are different connectors than what you have as prior art.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`MR. ANGLE: The connectors he had in prior art are commercial
`embodiments of various connectors. I don't think they are proper for
`institution proceedings before the IPR. In other words, they are products.
`They are not patents on those connectors. So we couldn't rely on them for
`the purposes of the proceeding today, if that makes sense.
`JUDGE SAINDON: But I guess, is there any evidence that those
`types of connectors were marketed to Christmas tree manufactures or
`decorative lighting or they just went to Home Depot and there are all the
`different connectors?
`MR. ANGLE: I don't know. I didn't ask that specific question and
`he didn't respond. He indicated that he had a list of vendors that were
`available to him and he chose amongst ten different options for those
`connectors. My understanding is that they were just readily available
`connectors in the field. Like I said, patent owner doesn't contend that the
`connectors themselves are the inventive feature. It's really the combination
`of these four elements that they contend are patentable.
`JUDGE SAINDON: I guess what I'm looking for is somebody
`who is going the make a Christmas tree, an ordinary artisan, what is the
`universe that he or she is looking at? And if they know to go to these
`vendors for the components, that's one thing. If they go somewhere else,
`that's another thing. So I'm just trying to figure out the scope of the art.
`MR. ANGLE: Certainly I understand, Your Honor. We didn't ask
`that specific question. I can say that, as I mentioned before, Willis came into
`the industry a little late, the artificial Christmas tree industry. They were in
`the lighting industry before. So there is, like I said, there is a field of
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`endeavor kind of crosses over lighting and Christmas trees. So I don't think
`it would be -- in other words, I don't think there are any vendors out there
`just specific for connectors for artificial Christmas trees.
`Your Honor, turning to slide 9, I'll just identify the main arguments
`the patent owner makes here in response to our petition. Really, there are
`three primary arguments they assert. First, patent owner tries to use claim
`constructions to disqualify the prior art. Second, patent owner attempts to
`narrowly construe the field of endeavor to characterize the prior art as not
`analogous. And third, they attack the motivations to combine.
`So I was first going to address the claim construction issues that
`the patent owner raises. If we could, I would like to move to patent owner
`slide 17 which is up on the screen here, Judge Plenzler. I'll give you a
`second to get to the other -- okay. Slide 17 is patent owner's opposition in a
`nutshell. What slide 17 shows is a picture of patent owner's assembly of a
`prototype tree intended to be the Miller reference which is one of the
`primary references that we rely on. The point of this picture is to show that
`Miller lacks permanently attached branches and integral light strings.
`Even the Miller tree when fully assembled, which is shown in the
`picture on the far right of the slide, does have attached branches and light
`strings, patent owner argues that Miller does not teach the claimed invention
`because Miller's branches and light strings are not permanently or
`semipermanently attached. Of course, nowhere do the patents say anything
`about permanently or semipermanently attached branches or light strings.
`So to read those requirements into the claims, the patent owner tries to
`redefine the invention in several ways.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`Turning to patent owner's slide 5, first is tree portion which is a
`claim that appears in many -- claim element that appears in many of the
`claims. Patent owner tries to construe tree portion to mean a mechanically
`electrically connectible modular and unitary portion of an artificial tree.
`Now, what patent owner means by that is the tree portion must mean and can
`only mean a tree section such as that as shown on the right-hand side of this
`slide where each unit includes joined branches, attached light strings, an
`electrical connector in the trunk and a hollow trunk section -- portion. But
`patent owner cannot identify anything in the record that actually supports
`this definition. Indeed, unitary is a word that never shows up in any of the
`patents anywhere.
`So how does the patent owner read all of these requirements into
`its definition of tree portion? It's through the word "modular." If we can
`turn to patent owner slide 6, so patent owner slide 6 is where patent owner
`offers a construction of modular as it relates to tree portions. As you can see
`from the third bullet point, patent owner asserts that in discussing modular
`tree portions, the patent, quote, and I emphasize consistently refers to tree
`portions as having joined branches, affixed light strings, electrical connector
`in the trunk and a hollow trunk portion. But that really is not the case.
`Indeed, patent owner's articulation of how it characterizes modular tree
`sections is not itself consistent.
`If we could pull up paper 58 at page 47 which is what's cited in
`patent owner's slide 6 which is the top of this page, Judge Plenzler, are you
`able to get to that?
`JUDGE PLENZLER: I am. You just have to give me a minute.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`MR. ANGLE: Absolutely. So this is the patent owner response
`paper 58. And I said page 47 -- are you there, Judge Plenzler?
`JUDGE PLENZLER: I am. If you could, just going forward, I
`know you said you are going to reference the --
`MR. ANGLE: Slides and I forgot.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: No, no, if you're going to reference the 1610
`file, if you could instead of or in addition to paper number, reference patent
`owner response, for example. I have a lot of the documents here.
`MR. ANGLE: Understood. Absolutely. That will be easier for
`me, actually.
`As you see at the top of the page, this is a definition of tree portion
`and this is actually the one referred to in the slide. And it's different from
`what is on the slide. It says that tree portions consistently refer to modular
`unitary portions of the tree that include trunk portions, branches, electrical
`wiring, electrical/mechanical connections and lights. So no reference to
`fixed light strings or joined branches.
`If you could turn to page 18 of the patent owner response, at the
`bottom of that page you'll see another definition of tree portions. Here
`patent owner says the tree portion is each portion having a trunk portion with
`external light string, wiring or joined or attached branches, internal wiring of
`the trunk and electrical trunk connection that can be made at any orientation,
`a connector fixedly secured in the trunk portion and a circular trunk wall that
`does not include a rotational alignment structure. Again, no affixed light
`strings and something about a rotational alignment.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`If we go to page 11 of this same document, the bottom last
`paragraph of that page 11, you'll see another definition which is that tree
`portions having joined branches, external branch wiring and a trunk portion
`with internal trunk wiring and nonconductive mechanical and electrical
`connectors fixedly secured within the trunk portions, again, no fixed light
`strings mentioned and something about a non-conductive connector.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, I get your point that they are a little
`different, but I'm wondering if maybe there's kind of an underlying theme.
`I'm looking at the '186 patent, claim 1, and we have a lighted artificial tree
`comprising a first tree portion including the trunk and the branches and
`electrical something, however they have claimed that. And I'm wondering,
`effectively, as I see your position is you say, well, the prior art has the trunk
`portion, the branches and the connector, therefore, it has the tree portion.
`And I think what patent owner is saying, a tree portion is something that has
`these three things, so that's why they are together. That's kind of that the
`claim itself requires a tree portion and that's something than just having the
`list of the things that composes that tree portion. So that's why they
`specifically said a first tree portion as opposed to just cutting to the chase.
`So I wonder if you could respond to that.
`MR. ANGLE: Your Honor, actually, if we could turn to, going
`back to our slides, slide 12, so petitioner slide 12, your point is a good one,
`Your Honor. And what really is there's a lot of inconsistent language within
`the patents and the '186 in particular. And what the slide 12 actually shows
`is the inconsistency in the way they use these very terms. So looking at the
`'186 and the '187 patent, for example, claims 1, 10, 20 of the '186 and claims
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`1 and 7 of the '187 patent each recite tree portion, which we were just talking
`about, as well as the elements that patent owner says comprise tree portion,
`which of course, if tree portion meant what patent owner says it means
`would be redundant and there would be nobody to do that. It also in the
`claims recites little variation on each way it says those things.
`But then when you look at the '056 patent, it also uses tree portion
`but does not require internal wiring or attached branches in any of them.
`Then if you look at claim 5 of the '379 patent, it uses tree section, which
`patent owner has represented is the same as tree portion, but it likewise does
`not require attached branches. So it's little word choices that are different
`that a POSA would be unable to determine there's this one definition of tree
`portion that's supported by the spec because it just isn't supported by the
`spec.
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: I'm wondering with this slide 12 here for
`those -- for example, you have '186 which has a tree portion, the wiring, the
`connector, the branches, the strings, whereas, let's say, the '056 has the tree
`portion but only the connector and the strings. When you have a group of
`patents, you claim different breadths. So I'm wondering if this is just
`breadth and you have specificity for, for example, the internal wiring if that
`patent then goes into the details of that wiring, and that's why they
`sometimes mention it and sometimes don't, because it's more relevant to
`that.
`
`MR. ANGLE: I completely agree with Your Honor, that is a way
`of doing patents like this. What's going on here is a little different, though.
`What patent owner is trying to do is specifically define tree portion in a way
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`that avoids the Miller reference. That's the whole point here. It's not about
`how these claims are different. They have different language and are subject
`to different interpretation.
`And like you said, that's fine. In '056 you may not need branches
`or light strings. Okay, that's fine, but you can't then say the tree portion
`always means that it has to have all four elements, which is what they are
`asserting. And part of the way they do that is through their use of the word
`"modular." So modular, again, is a term that gets thrown around a little bit.
`And what they say modular should mean is -- modular is how they -- as I
`talked about earlier, modular is how they wrap in tree portion, attached
`branches, light strings, et cetera. But modular doesn't have that meaning in
`the patent. There's nowhere in the patent that supports that.
`JUDGE SAINDON: I believe I have seen modular lighting and
`modular tree portion. I'm wondering what if the lighting was left out? Is
`patent owner's argument better if it's modular or tree portion means just
`branches and trunk and the electrical connectors?
`MR. ANGLE: So they define tree portion to include modular.
`And then modular is how they bring in these other things. The word
`"modular" appears very few times in the patents themselves. It appears in
`the title and a couple references to it. It's actually an artifact of the
`provisional application. I don't know if you have had a chance to look at the
`provisional application from the 751 provisional, but there the invention is
`really directed at what is a modular lighting assembly, an assembly so that
`you could connect multiple light strings together and vary the tree in that
`way. In fact, it shows up in the specification in column 18 and Figures 14
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`through 17 -- I'm sorry, 17 through 20 all relate to that modular light
`assembly. But modular is not used consistently in the patents or anywhere
`else to mean necessarily in the Christmas tree industry that modular tree
`portion must always include attached light, attached branches, a light string,
`internal wire connectors and internal wiring.
`And in fact, in talking about modular, Mr. Chen, the inventor,
`agrees that modular doesn't have a specific meaning. When he was asked, if
`we can pull up paper -- I guess this is the petitioner's reply, so paper 99 at
`page 12, there we go, you can see there's a quote there from Johnny Chen. I
`asked him about what modular means, and he gave you the plain and
`ordinary meaning which most people understand. It means that pieces come
`apart kind of like Legos. That's right. That's what modular means. It
`doesn't have the specific meaning. In fact, he acknowledged that his
`understanding of modular that's been put forward by patent owner is not one
`necessarily adopted by the industry, because it is not a term of the industry
`that modular always means artificial trees with the four elements. Does that
`make sense, Your Honor?
`But it gets more complicated, this reconstruction of the patent. If
`we could turn to patent owner's slide 15 --
`JUDGE PARVIS: I have a quick question. Is your position that
`modular artificial tree is -- perhaps just requires a trunk?
`MR. ANGLE: Well, we don't think that modular artificial tree has
`a specific meaning by itself. Modular means, like Mr. Chen said, like
`Legos. It's component parts that can be put together. So a modular tree
`portion could -- I mean, a trunk is part of a modular tree section, yes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: So would the trunk alone, then, be the artificial
`tree? If modular is separate discrete parts, is a trunk an artificial tree?
`MR. ANGLE: I don't think so. I don't think in the -- that the
`patents certainly don't provide any intrinsic evidence that would support that
`as being a definition. This is a definition that is being offered by the patent
`owner after the fact, as I said, to avoid Miller as a reference. It's not a
`construction that's supported anywhere in the intrinsic record.
`JUDGE PARVIS: So a modular artificial tree would we need,
`then, discrete parts of at least the trunk and the branches?
`MR. ANGLE: I'm sorry, I missed part of your question.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Some of the claims in the '379 patent recite
`trunk section and then there's the recitation of modular artificial tree. I'm
`trying to understand if artificial tree is different than trunk.
`MR. ANGLE: The patent owner certainly has taken a position, I
`believe, that it is different.
`JUDGE PARVIS: It would be helpful to understand petitioner's
`position on that.
`MR. ANGLE: Whether the trunk is separate from the --
`JUDGE PARVIS: Is it different than the tree? Are trunk portions
`or trunk sections different than tree portions and tree sections or a modular
`artificial tree?
`MR. ANGLE: Certainly the way it's used in the patent is different.
`I mean, it does try and -- they talk about tree portion and trunk portion as
`different. So, yes, I guess we would agree it's used differently in the '379
`patent that way.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`MR. ANGLE: Turning to patent owner's slide 15, this is where
`patent owner tries to redefine its terms to construe its patents to require that
`branches be permanently or semipermanently attached to the trunk sections.
`This is part of that broader overall definition.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, before we go into this, I would like
`to ask a question on the lighted tree claim construction. I don't know if you
`have something prepared for that. My question basically is what is a lighted
`tree? Is it a tree that has lights on it or a tree that's designed in a certain way
`that has lights on it, for example, a tree that provides the electricity at the
`tree as opposed to you could take a live tree and string lights on it and plug
`the lights into the wall separately? I'm trying to see if that's the distinction
`of the claim.
`MR. ANGLE: If we could go to petitioner's slide 13, which does
`relate to lighted artificial trees, going to your question, patent owner has
`taken a position, they have got a three-step argument where they are trying
`to read integral light strings into their tree portions. And they try and do this
`through the lighted artificial tree because lighted appears in some of the
`preambles of the claims. Pre-lit does not. But they try and use pre-lit which
`originally appeared in the provisional application, and they ultimately took
`that out. What they try and say is first pre-lit means integral to the
`construction, that it must be, it has this special meaning; and then second,
`that pre-lit and lighted are synonymous and equivalent to each other; and
`then third, they have to then say that the preambles are limiting to the
`claims. Of course, they have taken the position in the District Court action
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`

`

`Cases: IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`
`that they are not limiting to the claims. And they don't identify any way in
`which the claims are necessary to understand or provide any antecedent
`basis for anything or necessary to bring life to the claims. So that part of it
`is wrong.
`But in addition, as I think we addressed in our papers, pre-lit and
`lighted really have two different means. Pre-lit does imply what you are
`suggesting or at least I think what you were asking about, which is a tree that
`may have lights alrea

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