`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., NICOR INC., and AMAX
`LIGHTING,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 6, 2018
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE: KEVIN F. TURNER, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`SAILESH K. PATEL, ESQUIRE
`JASON G. HARP, ESQUIRE
`Schiff Hardin, LLP
`233 South Wacker Drive
`Suite 6600
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`ERIC D. HAYES, ESQUIRE
`KYLE M. KANTAREK, ESQUIRE
`Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`September 6, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE HUDALLA: Good afternoon. We are here today for oral
`argument in IPR2017-01280 concerning patent 8,967,844; IPR2017-01285
`concerning patent 8,672,518; and IPR2017-01287 concerning patent
`8,201,968. I'm Judge Hudalla, and with me I have Judges Turner and
`Boucher. As you can see, they are appearing remotely.
`Who do we have today from the lead petitioner?
`MR. PATEL: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Sal Patel for
`petitioners.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: And from patent owner?
`MR. HAYES: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Eric Hayes from
`Kirkland & Ellis on behalf of patent owner, Lighting Science Group. And I
`have with me my colleague Kyle Kantarek.
`JUDGE TURNER: Judge Hudalla, I don't think your mic is on.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: Can you hear me now?
`JUDGE TURNER: Thank you. Much better.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: Sorry about that. I wanted to state for the
`record also we have a telephone link today through which the joined
`petitioners, Jiawei and Leedarson, are joining us. I'm told that we cannot
`hear them, but I wanted to make a note for the record that they should be on
`the line per our order of, let me get the right date here, July 18th.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`
`Okay. So based on our original trial order, each party is going to
`have one hour to argue all three cases together. Petitioner will argue first
`and they can reserve rebuttal time. Patent owner may not reserve rebuttal
`time. Petitioner bears the burden, of course, of proving any proposition of
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. And I will remind you
`that this hearing is open to the public and a full transcript of the hearing will
`become part of the record.
`As I mentioned, Judges Turner and Boucher are joining us
`remotely. So it's going to be very important for you today to mention where
`you are, and if you are pointing to something in the record, please mention
`to them or whatever slide number you are on, please mention it to them so
`they can follow along.
`I think that's all I have. So Mr. Patel, do you want to go ahead and
`start, and then would you like to reserve rebuttal time?
`MR. PATEL: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to reserve
`20 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: You may start at any time.
`MR. PATEL: Good afternoon. May it please the Court, there are
`only three issues that remain in dispute in these IPRs involving LSG's
`patents. Before I go into those disputed issues, I would like to spend some
`time discussing the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`First, if we go to slide 2, these are LSG's patents. There's the '968
`patent which discloses an LED luminaire that can be fit in cans or junction
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`boxes. The '844 and '518 patents are continuations in part that add an
`accessory kit or adapter means such that it can be installed in either
`nominally-sized cans or junction boxes.
`In this slide, this is slide 3, we've listed the various components
`and parts that are present in LSG's patents, the elements. Notably, all of
`these elements are basic components of an LED lighting fixture and they
`were all known in the prior art. LSG's patents do not add anything new, a
`new driver, a new LED. They claim an obvious configuration of these parts
`that were well known in the art. And these parts, as you can see, include
`basic things like optics, LED, light source, a heat spreader, a heat sink, even
`things like twist-on wire connectors, trim rings, things that were well known
`in the art.
`The earliest priority date of the LSG patents is October 5, 2009.
`Notably here, LSG has not claimed an earlier conception date. So let's take
`a look at the state of the art in 2009. We are now at slide 6. LEDs and
`luminaires were well known in the art by 2009. There's a plethora of prior
`art that discloses LED light fixtures, including low-profile lighting fixtures
`such as Soderman, Silescent and Roberge. There are also others that can be
`used in can-type configurations. And Wegner is a prior art reference that
`disclosed an adapter that could be used in an Edison-based receptacle or
`connected to wires in a junction box and explicitly teaches how to do it.
`Moreover, the prior art disclosed the desirability of installing LED
`lighting fixtures in both new construction and retrofit applications. Here we
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`have Chou, Wegner, Soderman in slide 7, all disclosing that desirability.
`Even LSG's own patent in its background discloses that desirability for old
`work applications.
`Now, it was well known in the art that for these retrofit
`applications what were commonly used were nominally-sized cans and
`junction boxes. These are 4, 5, 6-inch cans. Here if we are looking at slide
`9, Dr. Coleman testifies to this. Slide 10 we have Dr. Coleman and
`Dr. Bretschneider agreeing that LEDs were well known in residential
`lighting applications at least since 2006.
`Very importantly, both experts agree that a POSA would have used
`off-the-shelf LED components in a light fixture design. Here we have
`Dr. Bretschneider stating we were using off-the-shelf, so to speak. Again,
`Dr. Bretschneider in his declaration also states that a POSA was using
`materials that were -- parts that were available off the shelf. Dr. Coleman
`had the same testimony. We are just going through slides 10 to 12 here
`where he talks about drivers were available off the shelf and that a POSA
`would have used these drivers off the shelf.
`Moreover, Dr. Coleman, who is a Ph.D. in physics with several
`years of experience in designing lighting fixtures, including LED lighting
`fixtures, stated that a POSA would understand how they would choose a
`light engine with fewer LEDs to make it more efficient, cooler running, they
`could use a smaller driver that would reduce the amount of heat that's
`generated by the fixture. Again, I'm going to skip through slide 14 because
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`it just mentions the off-the-shelf concept again. The mounting brackets,
`optics reflectors, these other components were also all available off the shelf.
`So now with that state of the art, what are the issues that are
`actually in dispute? Well, those issues are whether a POSA would have
`been motivated to combine the cited references, whether the Silescent
`reference that we provided to the Court was a printed publication and
`whether the secondary heat sink in Chou negates anticipation.
`LSG doesn't dispute that the prior art discloses all of these
`elements. These are the three issues that remain in dispute. So let's start
`with motivation. Petitioner has provide ample evidence of motivation to
`combine the references for the instituted obviousness grounds. It's been
`provided both in the form of expert testimony through Dr. Coleman, and
`motivation has been identified in the prior art itself.
`Dr. Coleman explained that a POSA would have been motivated to
`create an LED fixture that could be used in both light cans and junction
`boxes since this was the commonly used receptacle in old construction. And
`even in new construction today, cans are sometimes used, maybe junction
`boxes more today than in retrofit applications.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: Mr. Patel, I just wanted to remind you to
`tell, for the purposes of the record, what slide you are on.
`MR. PATEL: We are looking at slide 19, Your Honors. If we
`look to slide 20, KSR, the Supreme Court case has established that a design
`need or market pressure to solve a problem where there are a finite number
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`of identifiable predictable solutions provides the motivation necessary for a
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Here there was a huge market need for a
`versatile LED fixture that could fit in both cans and junction boxes,
`particularly for old construction. And as we had stated, all of these parts
`were available. So a person of ordinary skill in the art, particularly after
`looking at the prior art references that we are talking about, would have been
`motivated to come up with a lighting fixture that had an adapter means such
`that it could fit in both cans and junction boxes, and they would dimension it
`accordingly so that it could fit in a nominally sized 4-inch junction box
`which would have a depth of 1-1/2 inches.
`Now, this is on slide 21, Dr. Coleman again talks about the market
`need that was present. He was in this field at the time and he's testifying
`about this huge market need that was there. Everybody was looking to
`find -- he's testifying about the market need that shows that a POSA would
`have combined Chou and Wegner to get a fixture that's capable of use in
`lights -- in can lights and J-boxes because of the versatile application.
`Again, his testimony is backed up by the prior art which also
`disclosed this desirability. He also provided a motivation for the accessory
`kit because it would be easier to install a lighting fixture, because if you had
`a Edison receptacle, one could screw that receptacle in without having to
`hold the lighting fixture at the same time and then connect the lighting
`fixture to the wires or the connector that would be hanging off from the
`Edison receptacle.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE HUDALLA: Can I ask you a question on that? Actually,
`I want to go back to the junction box point. Patent owner says that it's hard
`to move from -- moving from a retrofit or construction need to actually
`trying to say let's move from cans to junction boxes. You are saying that's
`too much of a leap and that the art, for instance, Chou, doesn't even mention
`junction boxes. How do you respond to something like that?
`MR. PATEL: Well, with respect to Chou, Chou teaches the trim.
`And the trim is disclosed as dissipating most of the heat. And a person of
`ordinary skill in the art reading Chou would understand that that trim is the
`primary heat sink and heat spreader. And with this motivation of being able
`to fit such a fixture in a junction box, they would be motivated to remove
`that heat sink and use smaller, less LEDs, for example, or smaller power
`driver such that it could fit into junction boxes.
`Moreover, here we've also provided other prior art that existed that
`was there in the art that had a low-profile structure such as Soderman,
`Roberge and Silescent.
`But if your question is based on Chou alone, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to remove that heat sink. And the
`trim 12 still provides the height dimension, height diameter ratios that are
`required in some of LSG's claims.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: So in the Chou/Wegner combination, you
`are relying, I guess, primarily or exclusively on expert testimony to get you
`past -- or to move you from cans to junction boxes?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`
`MR. PATEL: For Chou and Wegner, it would be expert testimony
`as well as what the experts are testifying about, what was known in the art,
`the availability of off-the-shelf components, the availability of small drivers.
`Dr. Coleman also looks to some prior art references such as DiLouie which
`talk about the fact that LEDs and LED drivers are small enough to fit in
`junction boxes.
`JUDGE TURNER: But with respect to Chou alone, I think you
`said that there's a heat sink in Chou; is that correct?
`MR. PATEL: There are actually two heat sinks in Chou. There's a
`fin structure heat sink that dissipates some of the heat, about a third. And
`there is the trim piece that has a heat sink and a heat spreader that dissipates
`most of the heat. And what we are saying is that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have that ordinary creativity. They are not an automaton to
`decrease the number of LEDs or use a different type of LED. Chou is not
`limited to a certain type of LED or a certain number of LEDs. Indeed, if you
`look at Chou, it talks about that any type of LEDs can be used. So that
`would have been within the skill of a -- within the skill of a POSA to make
`those modifications and have -- and still be able to have a light fixture.
`Notably here, Your Honors, one thing that I would like to mention
`and that you should keep in your mind is that the LSG claims are very broad.
`They don't have any performance limitations whatsoever in terms of the
`amount of lumens, the wattage or how the light should be dispersed. These
`are all limitations that Dr. Bretschneider is adding. Even when he does his
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`calculations on Chou, he's making assumptions about the number of LEDs
`and type of LEDs that are not explicitly required in Chou.
`JUDGE TURNER: Let me redirect you back to -- because there is
`an anticipation ground under Chou, is there not?
`MR. PATEL: Yes, there is an anticipation ground under Chou.
`JUDGE TURNER: So what I understand patent owner's argument
`to be, if you have this fitting and then you have what you have
`acknowledged to be the heat sink, why wouldn't one of ordinary skill in the
`art, in terms of looking at Chou from Chou alone, anticipation, why wouldn't
`they include both of those and therefore, it wouldn't, you know, fall under
`the claim's requirements and then anticipation ground of a certain
`height-to-width dimension?
`MR. PATEL: So because of the market need for the ability to fit
`in retrofit applications such as junction boxes which have a low profile, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Chou would understand that that
`heat sink 14 can be removed.
`Moreover, Chou does anticipate regardless of the presence of that
`heat sink 14, because first of all, the LSG claims are comprising. They are
`open-ended claims. And if we look at the cases, for example, like the
`Gillette case is a good example where the claims were directed to -- these
`are the Mach 3, Mach 4-type blades. The claims are directed to a razor
`having three blades, and a razor having four blades was also found to
`infringe. So what I'm getting at here is the concept of that which infringes if
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`later anticipates if earlier. So if you look at the Chou reference and compare
`it to the LSG claims, it would infringe because it has the trim that has the
`height and diameter limitations, and all it does is add another heat sink, just
`like another blade. So when --
`JUDGE TURNER: Let me stop you there and try to redirect. I
`think I understand your argument, but it seems a little bit more -- if we are
`going to talk about that case, that you are suddenly saying that fourth blade,
`that's not really a blade. We are not calling that a blade. We've decided that
`that's going to be a piece of metal. And it seems like you are sort of
`distorting in that case.
`And in this case, what we have is we have a trim piece and we
`have a heat sink, and then you are saying don't worry about the heat sink.
`Even though they call it a heat sink, the silly inventors in Chou, they were
`confused. That's not really a heat sink.
`I don't know how we can, you know, support anticipation when the
`heat sink is the heat sink. I can't be any more succinct than what "is" is.
`That's where I'm having trouble.
`MR. PATEL: There is no explicit definition of heat sink that's
`limited to item number 14 in Chou. Also, here when we are looking at it
`from the --
`JUDGE TURNER: But they call it a heat sink, do they not?
`MR. PATEL: They do call it a heat sink, but a person of ordinary
`skill in the art who is a master's or bachelor's in physics or an engineer, they
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`would read the full disclosure of Chou. And when they read Chou, they
`would see the disclosure that most of the heat is dissipated by the trim, and
`they would understand that the trim acts, functions as a heat sink and a heat
`spreader.
`JUDGE TURNER: Is there any disclosure within the four corners
`of Chou that says get rid of the heat sink and just use the trim?
`MR. PATEL: There isn't an explicit disclosure that I'm aware of.
`JUDGE TURNER: How about give me an implicit. I'm open to
`discussion. Give me an implicit one.
`MR. PATEL: Well, implicitly, it says that the Chou light fixture
`can be shaped in various geometries to fit in a housing. That's the --
`JUDGE TURNER: It says get rid of the heat sink?
`MR. PATEL: That doesn't necessarily say get rid of the heat sink,
`but it talks about different geometries. And the claims also just claim a heat
`sink. They are not claiming multiple heat sinks.
`JUDGE TURNER: Before I let you go, and this will be relatively
`quick, with respect to the instituted grounds in the '968 where we had the
`anticipation ground, we also have obviousness grounds over Chou, but
`hypothetically if we were to assume that we find that the anticipation
`grounds doesn't render the independent claims unpatentable, would the
`obviousness grounds also fall or would you counter that proposition?
`MR. PATEL: The obviousness grounds would not fall because
`there, based on the market need and the disclosure of these -- based on the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`market need for a retrofit application for a low profile LED structure, a
`POSA would be motivated to just use the trim 12 and reduce the number of
`LEDs and reduce the size of the power driver. All of these components were
`available off the shelf. And it would be well within the skill of a POSA that
`has a physics degree with several years of experience in designing these
`lighting fixtures.
`JUDGE TURNER: And I think that's a great argument, but I guess
`my question would be with respect to the '968 patent and the petition, is that
`anywhere in the petition? I understand you can make that argument and you
`can say, well, yeah, claim 1 would have been obvious over Chou and some
`combination or Roberge or Love or Wegner, but did you make that argument
`in the petition?
`MR. PATEL: I believe that argument is in the petition. I can't cite
`it to you right now, but we can get that cite for you.
`JUDGE TURNER: Certainly. I haven't been able to find it. So if
`you can find it when you come back on rebuttal, please, I would be most
`interested in seeing what I can't find.
`MR. PATEL: Sure.
`JUDGE TURNER: Thank you.
`MR. PATEL: Absolutely. If I can move on to -- unless there are
`any other questions on the anticipation or obviousness based on Chou, I
`would like to move on to the Silescent publication. So with respect to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`Silescent, and we are turning to slide 44, that is a printed publication under
`102(a).
`
`Now, let's take a look at the Silescent publication. There's a
`product sheet and an installation guide. Silescent does not -- I mean, patent
`owner does not dispute that Silescent discloses the recited height-to-diameter
`ratio that's required by the claims. Instead, LSG's argument is that it's not a
`printed publication. But Silescent's CEO, Mr. Soderman, and we are on
`slide 46, gave clear testimony and corroborating documentation in the form
`of an invoice showing that the product sheet and the installation instructions
`together were available to the public before the critical date.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: Just to be clear, though, the invoice didn't
`say anything about sending off the instructions in the product sheet; am I
`right about that?
`MR. PATEL: That's correct. The instructions sheets themselves
`didn't say anything to that effect. But Mr. Soderman testified that it was the
`company's ordinary business practice to send both the product sheet and the
`installation guide along with the product, which makes sense. These are
`marketing documents, instruction documents to teach customers how to use
`the product.
`He testified, if you look at slide 48, that it was vital and critical to
`do so, to ship these documents along with the product. He also testified that
`he wasn't aware of any situation where he wouldn't have provided them
`together. And that's on slide 49. He also testified that the sheets were
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`provided to those different individuals in and out of the industry. That's on
`slide 50. And finally, on slide 51, we have the invoice that's dated July 24th
`of 2009. So there was a sale at least in July, and this product was being
`marketed and was publicly accessible.
`In fact, this case is really on all fours with the L&P Property
`Management case where this Board found that where there was testimony
`that the instructions were shipped with the product, that it was the company's
`practice to do that. That was the ordinary business practice of the company
`and there was an invoice confirming that a shipment was made before the
`critical date, and the instruction sheet itself was dated before the critical
`date. And here the installation instructions are dated June 2009.
`Now, LSG tries to cast a cloud on whether this is a printed
`publication through an argument that if you look on slide 52, that the
`Silescent reference has some language that says secured patents or patented.
`And they claim that that's inconsistent with the June 2009 date because
`Mr. Soderman didn't receive a patent until October 13, 2009. But during his
`deposition -- and there's a very reasonable explanation for this. He received
`two notices of allowance in June 2009 for his design patents that covered
`both the circular-shaped Silescent trim product as well as the
`octagonal-shaped product.
`Mr. Soderman also said they created the Silescent sheet, that his
`company created it without legal review. And it's understandable that a
`layperson who is not a lawyer getting a notice of allowance when the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`examination on merits is completed and there are still administrative actions
`that need to be followed, that that person would think that they have
`obtained a patent. So that argument fails. Silescent is a printed publication.
`It was publicly accessible to any customer that was interested in the
`Silescent product and it's on all fours with the L&P Property Management
`case.
`
`The other criticisms that LSG makes, again, generally I can go into
`them in detail, but generally there are some themes here. First their expert is
`drawing in limitations, performance limitations that are nowhere in the
`claim. They are also discounting explicit teachings in a reference based on
`items that are not -- so an example of that would be, for example, they say
`one would not combine Chou and Roberge because Roberge uses a different
`type of heat dissipation means where there are air channels. But all we are
`relying on Roberge for is the mounting bracket. A POSA would not be
`dissuaded to use the Roberge mounting bracket simply because it uses a
`different heat dissipation method. So they are basically making a POSA,
`who is a physics major, bachelor's, master's with several years of experience
`in designing these LED fixtures to an automaton who has no creativity. And
`that's improper.
`Moreover, they make artificial distinctions between prior art that
`was above the ceiling versus below the ceiling. This is an artificial
`distinction. The field of art here is clearly LED lighting fixtures. All the
`prior art that we are citing to is from the LED lighting field. We are not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`even going to analogous fields. I would say that even lighting fixtures that
`use incandescent bulbs or could be within the field, but we are not even
`going into those analogous fields. We're using LED lighting fixtures.
`Dr. Bretschneider, in trying to make this distinction, he cites to
`1981 and 1984 handbooks when -- but that's the wrong prior art period. I
`mean, we know that LEDs were not around at least until the early 2000s. A
`POSA would not be looking at a 1981 or 1984 handbook and understand
`that, well, this is a distinction. These are two different fields.
`Finally, this Board is going to need to make a credibility
`determination based on the two experts. And I would just like to point out
`that Dr. Bretschneider has had a close and continuing relationship with the
`patent owner. He's worked with each and every named inventor during his
`time at LSG and directly supervised most of them. He was responsible for
`some of the testing that resulted in the embodiments of the LSG patents.
`He's also recently reached out to LSG for -- to his development of new
`testing hardware where he hopes that LSG will be a potential customer.
`That's on slide 33. And if you look on slide 33, a vast majority of his patents
`include co-inventors of the patents in these related IPRs. And he continues
`to receive new patents with these inventors, including one as recently as
`March 2009.
`Dr. Coleman, on the other hand, his only interaction with TCP, the
`petitioners, is in this case. So I believe that should also be taken into
`account by the Board in assessing credibility of the experts.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`
`It looks like I still have some more time. If there are -- unless there
`are any other questions, I can turn it over to patent owner.
`JUDGE HUDALLA: I don't think we have any questions. So
`thank you.
`MR. HAYES: So good afternoon again. My name is Eric Hayes
`and I'm here on behalf of patent owner, Lighting Science Group.
`Turning to slide 2, I have identified here the three issues that I
`would like to spend my time on this afternoon, similar to petitioner's three
`issues, the first one being that Chou does not anticipate or render obvious the
`challenged claims when you look at all that Chou discloses; second, that the
`reasons or motivations to combine that petitioner relies on in this case are
`inadequate and fail; and third, the Silescent product sheet. Now, petitioner
`just generically referred to Silescent or Silescent publication. I would like to
`focus on the product sheet because there are two separate documents with
`respect to Silescent, the installation guide or the install guide and the product
`sheet. And the product sheet is the one that we believe is not prior art, was
`not publically disclosed before the critical date of October 5, 1999. And just
`generally speaking, I would like to focus today on the evidence which I kind
`of refer to as the new evidence. And by that I mean the evidence that has
`come forth during the course of this trial that was not before the Board at the
`time of their institution decision.
`So slide 3, turning to slide 3, just by way of background here, the
`patents that we are talking about here are directed to a low-profile light.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01280 (Patent 8,967,844 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01285 (Patent 8,672,518 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01287 (Patent 8,201,968 B2)
`
`We've included Figure 12 here that kind of shows you a nice depiction of a
`low-profile light.
`Turning to slide 4, here I think it's probably worth a minute just to
`slow down and look at claim 1 of the '968 patent which has a number of
`limitations. It's drawn to a luminaire, including a heat spreader and a heat
`sink thermally coupled to the heat spreader, an outer optic, a light source. In
`this case the light source comprises the plurality of light-emitting diodes or
`LEDs. And then this last limitation, which we're going to spend a good bit
`of time on which we refer to as the H/D limitation wherein the heat spreader,
`the heat sink and the outer optic in combination have an overall height, H,
`and an overall outside dimension, D, such that the ratio of H/D is equal to or
`less than 0.25. I'm sure you are all good at math, but I think of this as the
`height has to be one quarter or less than the outside dimension of the overall
`luminaire.
`Just a note here on slide 5, there are two independent claims here
`in '968. Independent claim 1 and independent cla
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
