`
`
`
`
`
`
`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