`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TCL MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LTD.
`and
`TTE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because It Does Not Identify All
`Real-Parties-in-Interest. ................................................................................... 2
`A. VIZIO is an unidentified real-party-in-interest. .................................... 2
`B.
`TTEC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest. ..................................... 5
`C.
`TCLC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest. ..................................... 8
`III. The Board Should Deny Institution Under §325(d) and §314(a). ................... 9
`A.
`The Office previously considered the same or substantially the
`same references and arguments. ............................................................ 9
`The General Plastic factors favor denying institution. .......................12
`B.
`IV. Technical Background ...................................................................................15
`A. Nichia develops the blue LED. ...........................................................16
`B.
`Researchers pursue the white LED using a 3-LED red-green-
`blue approach. .....................................................................................17
`Nichia discards the 3-LED approach. .................................................18
`C.
`D. Nichia uses phosphors with LEDs. .....................................................19
`E.
`Nichia develops a sheet-like white-light source using a blue
`LED and phosphors. ............................................................................20
`Nichia develops a white LED..............................................................23
`Petitioners’ asserted history of YAG confirms that Nichia’s use
`of it in an LED was a breakthrough. ...................................................26
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because Petitioners Fail to Present the
`Required Graham Analysis. ..........................................................................29
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................32
`VII. Ground 1 Should Be Denied Because It Relies on the Non-Analogous
`Pinnow Reference. .........................................................................................32
`Cree is irrelevant to whether Pinnow is analogous art. .......................34
`A.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Pinnow is not in the same field of endeavor as the ’375. ....................36
`Pinnow is not reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by the
`’375 inventors. .....................................................................................44
`D. Nichia’s inclusion of Pinnow on an IDS is irrelevant. ........................46
`VIII. Ground 1 Should Be Denied Because Petitioners Have Not
`Demonstrated a Motivation to Combine Baretz with Shimizu. ....................47
`IX. Ground 2 Should Be Denied Because Petitioners Have Not Shown a
`Reason to Combine Tadatsu and Nakamura with Shimizu. ..........................54
`X. Ground 2 Should Be Denied Because Petitioners Have Not Shown a
`Motivation to Combine Tadatsu, Nakamura, and Shimizu with Blasse. ......55
`XI. Ground 2 Should Be Denied with Respect to Claim 4 Because
`Petitioners Fail to Show Blasse Teaches the Claimed Range. ......................60
`XII. Petitioners Have Not Demonstrated the Required Nexus for Osram’s
`Supposed “Simultaneous Invention.” ............................................................61
`XIII. Petitioners’ Collateral Estoppel Argument Is Baseless. ................................62
`XIV. The Pending Oil States Decision ...................................................................63
`XV. Conclusion .....................................................................................................63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC,
`856 F.3d 883 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 62
`
`Alarm.com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01124, Pap. 11 (Dec. 5, 2016) ............................................................. 13
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Appistry, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00480, Pap. 18 (July 13, 2015) ..................................................... 5, 7, 8
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,
`872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Atl. Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Pap. 88 (Jan. 6, 2015) ............................................................ 6, 7
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 33, 36, 38
`
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) ............................................................................................ 63
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 44
`
`Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.,
`467 U.S. 752 (1984) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Cree, Inc.,
`818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`
`Ex Parte Cree, Inc.,
`Appeal 2014-007890 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2014) ..................................................... 34
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`In re Deminiski,
`796 F.2d 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 36, 38
`
`Duo Sec. Inc. v. Strikeforce Techs.,
`IPR2017-01041, Pap. 7 (Oct. 16, 2017) ................................................. 47, 49, 50
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Pap. 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................ 13, 14, 15
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................................... 1, 29, 55
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 47
`
`Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc.,
`61 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 18
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 47
`
`Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Pap. 13 (Sept. 6, 2017) ........................................................ 9, 10
`
`Nora Lighting, Inc. v. Juno Mfg., LLC,
`IPR2015-00601, Pap. 13 (Aug. 12, 2015) .......................................................... 12
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 BV,
`IPR2017-01318, Pap. 12 (Nov. 8, 2017) ............................................................ 13
`
`Ex parte Rinkevich,
`Appeal No. 2017-1317 (BPAI May 29, 2007) ................................................... 50
`
`Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01305, Pap. 11 (Oct. 17, 2017) ............................................... 13, 14, 15
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Pap. 36 (Jan. 9, 2013) ........................................................... 62
`
`Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co.,
`IPR2014-00367, Pap. 62 (May 26, 2015) ........................................................... 44
`
`Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Tech., LLC,
`CBM2015-00047, Pap. 7 (June 15, 2015) ............................................................ 3
`
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00257, Pap. 18 (Aug. 28, 2014) .......................................................... 49
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Pap. 10 (Dec. 14, 2016) ............................................................. 9
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 43
`
`In re Wood,
`599 F.2d 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1979) .................................................................... 36, 38
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 36
`
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................... 5, 9, 13, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .............................................................................................. 2, 5, 8, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................... 5, 9, 13, 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ......................................................................................... 29, 30, 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................................................................................................. 7, 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ................................................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756-48,773 ................................................ 3, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2004
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO,
`Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.) (Dkt. #1)
`(without exhibits)
`
`Proof of Service, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-
`cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.) (Dkt. #16)
`
`Complaint, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Technology
`Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.)
`(Dkt. #1) (without exhibits)
`
`Summons and Proof of Service, Nichia Corp. v. TCL
`Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-
`cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #7)
`
`EX2005 Defendants’ Objections and Responses to Nichia
`Corporation’s First Set of Requests for the Production of
`Documents and Things, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681
`(D. Del.) (excerpt)
`
`EX2006
`
`Joint Status Report Regarding Inter Partes Review
`Proceedings, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-
`00545 (C.D. Cal.) (without exhibits)
`
`EX2007 Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Stay
`Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patents-in-Suit, Nichia
`Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #52) (excerpt)
`
`EX2008 Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Stay
`Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patents-in-Suit, Nichia
`Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #61) (excerpt)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`EX2009 VIZIO, Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, Nichia
`Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.)
`(without exhibits) (highlighted excerpt)
`
`EX2010
`
`Exhibit 375-1 to VIZIO, Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions, Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-
`00545 (C.D. Cal.) (highlighted excerpt)
`
`EX2011 Defendants’ Corporate Disclosure Statement, Nichia Corp. v.
`TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case
`No. 1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (Dkt. #14)
`
`EX2012
`
`EX2013
`
`EX2014
`
`EX2015
`
`EX2016
`
`EX2017
`
`EX2018
`
`EX2019
`
`TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited,
`Annual Report 2016
`
`Business Card of Steven Zhou, Legal Director of IP,
`TCL Corporation
`
`Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Lexington Luminance LLC v. TCL Multimedia
`Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11458 (D. Mass.)
`(Dkt. #22)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, TCL Corporation et al. v.
`Lexington Luminance LLC, IPR2017-01780, Pap. 2
`(July 15, 2017)
`
`Shuji Nakamura et al., The Blue Laser Diode: The Complete
`Story (2d ed. 2000) (excerpt)
`
`Press Release, The Nobel Prize in Physics 2014
`(The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Oct. 7, 2014)
`
`Shuji Nakamura, Nichia’s 1cd Blue LED Paves Way for Full-
`Color Display, Nikkei Electronics Asia, 65-69 (June 1994)
`
`Phosphor Handbook (Shigeo Shionoya et al. eds., 1999)
`(excerpt)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`EX2020 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993)
`(excerpt)
`
`EX2021
`
`Trial Transcript, Volume 3 of 12, Everlight Elecs. Co. et al. v.
`Nichia Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-11758 (E.D. Mich.
`Apr. 9, 2015) (Dkt. #510) (excerpt)
`
`EX2022 Memorandum and Order, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681
`(D. Del. Nov. 28, 2017) (Dkt. #67)
`
`EX2023
`
`EX2024
`
`Claim Construction Order, Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia
`Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681
`(D. Del. Dec. 5, 2017) (Dkt. #70)
`
`Slip Opinion, Everlight Elecs. Co. et al. v. Nichia Corp. et al.,
`2016-1577, 2016-1611 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2018)
`(nonprecedential)
`
`EX2025* Non-Confidential Joint Appendix, Everlight Elecs. Co. et al.
`v. Nichia Corp. et al., 2016-1577, 2016-1611
`(Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2018) (excerpt)
`
`EX2026 Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions, Nichia Corp. v.
`TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No.
`1:16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) (dated June 2, 2017) (excerpt)
`
`
`* EX2025 contains pages of the joint appendix cited by the Federal Circuit in its
`
`Everlight decision (EX2024, 8 n.4): JA17581-82, JA17600-08. Nichia notes that
`
`pages within those cited ranges, JA017601 and JA017606, were not included in the
`
`joint appendix. Accordingly, they do not appear in EX2025.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) submits this §42.107
`
`Preliminary Response to the petition for IPR (“Petition” or “Pet.”) of claims 1
`
`and 4 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 (“’375”), filed by
`
`Petitioners TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd. (“TCL Multimedia”) and
`
`TTE Technology, Inc. (“TTE Technology”) (together, “Petitioners”).1
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petition fails to provide the basic evidence and analysis required to
`
`institute any IPR. In this Preliminary Response, Nichia addresses several of the
`
`Petition’s fundamental shortcomings, including that (i) Petitioners fail to disclose
`
`all real-parties-in-interest; (ii) Petitioners recycle the same or substantially the
`
`same references and arguments previously raised and rejected during the Office’s
`
`initial examination and the Board’s denials of numerous previous IPR petitions;
`
`(iii) Petitioners’ incomplete obviousness analysis skips mandatory Graham factors;
`
`(iv) Petitioners fail to show that Pinnow, a reference for Ground 1, is analogous art
`
`that can be used in any obviousness combination; (v) Petitioners fail to show a
`
`reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to combine Baretz, or
`
`Tadatsu and Nakamura, with Shimizu for Grounds 1 and 2; and (vi) Petitioners fail
`
`to show that a POSITA would have combined Blasse with the other references or
`
`1 Unless noted, all section references are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R., as context
`
`indicates, and all emphasis is added.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`that Blasse teaches material limitations of claims 1 and 4. For these reasons, the
`
`Petition should be denied.
`
`II. The Petition Should Be Denied Because It Does Not Identify All Real-
`Parties-in-Interest.
`
`An IPR petition may be considered only if “the petition identifies all real
`
`parties in interest” (“RPIs”). 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2). This Petition fails to do so by
`
`omitting at least VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”), TTE Corporation (“TTEC”), and TCL
`
`Corporation (“TCLC”) as RPIs. Furthermore, these omissions are not correctable:
`
`when it was filed, VIZIO was already barred from filing this Petition by §315(b)’s
`
`one-year statutory time limit. EX2001 ¶¶18-23; EX2002, 1. And, as to TTEC and
`
`TCLC, Petitioners cannot now amend to include them as RPIs because, if accorded
`
`a new filing date, the Petition would be time-barred under §315(b). Petitioners
`
`filed their Petition exactly one year after Petitioner TTE Technology was served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’375. EX2003 ¶¶23-28; EX2004, 2.
`
`A. VIZIO is an unidentified real-party-in-interest.
`The America Invents Act safeguards against harassment of patent owners
`
`through, e.g., successive petitions by the same or related parties.
`
`Section 315(b) provides that an “[IPR] may not be instituted if the petition
`
`requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the
`
`petitioner, [RPI], or privy … is served with a complaint alleging infringement.”
`
`One of the “core functions” of the RPI requirement is “to protect patent owners
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`from harassment via successive petitions by the same or related parties” and
`
`“prevent parties from having a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,759.2
`
`As to VIZIO, Petitioners state it “previously filed a petition challenging the
`
`’375,” but “was represented by different counsel in that [IPR],” and then,
`
`apparently on that basis, assert “VIZIO is not [an RPI] herein.” Pet. 72. But,
`
`Petitioners make troubling omissions here.
`
`Petitioners and VIZIO are all accused, in pending lawsuits, of infringing
`
`the ’375 and three related patents. They share the same trial counsel, Quinn
`
`Emanuel, now appearing as Petitioners’ IPR counsel on this Petition, and are
`
`parties to a joint defense agreement concerning the ’375 and related patents.
`
`Pet. 73-74; EX2005, 46 (joint defense privilege asserted); EX2006, 4 (Quinn
`
`Emanuel listed as VIZIO’s counsel). TCL cannot plausibly deny its close
`
`strategizing with VIZIO regarding these patents and the related proceedings merely
`
`because VIZIO named different counsel on its previous petitions for these same
`
`
`2 See also Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Tech., LLC, CBM2015-00047, Pap. 7, 13
`
`(June 15, 2015) (“Moreover, a decision on a petition … is not simply part of a
`
`feedback loop by which a petitioner may perfect its challenges through a
`
`subsequent filing.”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`patents, Pet. 72, or rely on the fact that VIZIO was the only-named petitioner and
`
`RPI in those petitions.3 In fact, Petitioners admit they communicated with VIZIO
`
`about the “preparation and/or filing” of VIZIO’s previous failed petitions.
`
`EX2005, 46. Other significant facts now available to Nichia further illuminate the
`
`coordinated effort of Petitioners and VIZIO across both their IPR and courtroom
`
`defenses:
`
`• VIZIO’s litigation invalidity contentions involving the ’375 copy,
`
`verbatim, significant portions of Petitioners’ present Petition;4
`
`• Petitioners filed this Petition on the last possible day for TTE
`
`Technology, seven weeks after VIZIO’s IPR denial, admitting they
`
`affirmatively used the first-wave VIZIO petition and its denial as a
`
`roadmap to further their joint defense group’s ends with this second wave
`
`of attacks, Pet. 1; EX2007, 6-7; and
`
`• Petitioners had intended to join VIZIO’s IPRs, if they had been
`
`instituted, EX2008, 4.
`
`While any one of these facts might, on its own, be insufficient to require
`
`
`3 See, e.g., IPR2017-00558, Pap. 1, 2 (Dec. 30, 2016).
`
`4 EX2009 and EX2010 (highlighted to show where VIZIO reproduced portions of
`
`the present Petition).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`finding VIZIO an RPI, together they should compel the Board to find Petitioners
`
`have failed to “establish that [they] complied with the statutory requirement” to
`
`name all RPIs. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Appistry, Inc., IPR2015-00480, Pap. 18, 3.
`
`(July 13, 2015). Because VIZIO is an RPI, the Petition is time-barred under
`
`§315(b) and would, in any event, represent an improper “second bite at the apple”
`
`in the guise of naming just Petitioners, see §325(d), §314(a), and discussion, infra.5
`
`TTEC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest.
`
`B.
`Petitioners admit, in their ’375 litigation corporate disclosure statement and
`
`their public statements, that Petitioner TTE Technology is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of TTEC, which is not named in the Petition and, in turn, is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Petitioner TCL Multimedia.6
`
`
`5 Between this and the three related petitions, Petitioners have challenged all
`
`claims Nichia asserted in litigations against Petitioners and VIZIO, with the sole
`
`exception of dependent claim 18 of Nichia’s related U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`(“’959”). That claim was asserted against only VIZIO.
`
`6 EX2011; EX2012, 2 (TCL Multimedia is the “Company”), 111 (100% of TTEC’s
`
`equity attributable to TCL Multimedia), 113 (100% of TTE Technology’s equity
`
`attributable to TCL Multimedia).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner TCL Multimedia can thus exercise complete control over Petitioner TTE
`
`Technology only indirectly, through unnamed TTEC. Copperweld Corp. v.
`
`Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 771-72 (1984). But, in these
`
`proceedings, authority to file the Petition on behalf of TTE Technology was given
`
`to Petitioners’ counsel by a joint power of attorney executed by Steven Zhou,
`
`identified simply as TCL Multimedia’s IP Director with no identified position at
`
`TTE Technology. Pap. 1. It appears Zhou’s authority to execute a power of
`
`attorney on TTE Technology’s behalf as an officer of TCL Multimedia must have
`
`come through TTEC—i.e., unnamed TTEC is involved and had control over TTE
`
`Technology’s filing of the Petition.
`
`In addition, it is apparent TCL Multimedia, TTEC, and TTE Technology
`
`“are so intertwined that it is difficult for both insiders and outsiders to determine
`
`precisely where one ends and another begins.” Atl. Gas Light Co. v. Bennett
`
`Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Pap. 88, 11 (Jan. 6, 2015). For example,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`in addition to filing consolidated financials (EX2012, 97-207), TCL Multimedia
`
`repeatedly refers to itself and its direct and indirect subsidiaries as the “Group” and
`
`uses the pronoun “we” throughout its recent 2016 annual report (id., 2), approaches
`
`key corporate issues from the perspective of the “Group,” id., 17-24, 29, 65, 66,
`
`68, 72, 73, 75, 77, and has committees that take the same Group-wide approach,
`
`such as the strategy executive committee, which approves “routine matters or
`
`matters concerning day-to-day operation of the Group.” Id., 62, 63, 64; Atl. Gas
`
`Light, 11.
`
`Given the relationships among these entities, including Zhou’s involvement
`
`here, it is clear the decision to file the Petition came from the top—i.e., at least
`
`from named Petitioner TCL Multimedia—through the corporate structure,
`
`including unnamed TTEC, down to named Petitioner TTE Technology.
`
`Petitioners’ omission of intermediate TTEC renders the Petition incomplete, and
`
`noncompliant with the statutory requirement to name all RPIs, thus requiring its
`
`denial. Amazon.com, 4-6 (denying petition where sued petitioners failed to
`
`identify as RPI an intermediate corporate entity that had not been sued).
`
`While §42.106(b) allows for certain corrections, it is unavailable here:
`
`Petitioners filed their Petition on August 25, 2017, a full year after Petitioner TTE
`
`Technology was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’375. Any
`
`correction would require assignment of a new filing date (§42.106(b)) more than
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`one year after service, violating §315(b). Amazon.com, 6-7.
`
`C. TCLC is an unidentified real-party-in-interest.
`Additionally, it appears Petitioner TCL Multimedia’s parent company,
`
`unnamed TCLC, is also an RPI. It owns a controlling interest (52.10%) in
`
`Petitioner TCL Multimedia (EX2011; EX2012, 3):
`
`
`
`The same Steven Zhou is also TCLC’s IP Director. EX2013. While related
`
`entities sometimes share corporate officers and directors, TCLC’s and TCL
`
`Multimedia’s activity in another IPR shows TCLC’s exertion of control over such
`
`proceedings, making TCLC an RPI here, too. In that IPR, as here, Petitioners (but
`
`not TCLC) are defendants accused of infringing claims of another patent
`
`concerning light-emitting devices. EX2014 ¶¶2-4, 9, 15. A little over a month
`
`before the present Petition was filed, Petitioners filed an IPR of that other patent.
`
`EX2015. But unlike here, they also named TCLC, as petitioner and RPI. Id., 43.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`Under nearly identical circumstances, and only a month apart, there is no
`
`indication why controlling TCLC would be an RPI in that IPR but not this one.
`
`TCLC has the same power to control these proceedings, and certainly a similar
`
`desire to defeat the asserted patent. Trial Practice Guide, 48,759 (“[T]he ‘real
`
`party-in-interest’ is the party that desires review of the patent.”).
`
`Because Petitioners failed to comply with the statutory requirement to name
`
`all RPIs, and this failure cannot be cured under §42.106(b) and §315(b), the
`
`Petition must be denied.
`
`III. The Board Should Deny Institution Under §325(d) and §314(a).
`A. The Office previously considered the same or substantially the
`same references and arguments.
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion to decline Petitioners’ invitation to
`
`institute an inter partes do-over. 35 U.S.C. §325(d). The Board has repeatedly
`
`denied institution when—as here—the petition fails to explain why this discretion
`
`to deny should not be exercised. See, e.g., Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`
`IPR2016-01571, Pap. 10, 11-12 (Dec. 14, 2016) (informative).
`
`In determining whether to dismiss under §325(d), the Board examines, first,
`
`whether the Petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments” as previously presented to the Office and, second, whether to exercise
`
`its discretion to deny institution. Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`
`IPR2015-01860, Pap. 13, 14-15 (Sept. 6, 2017). In determining whether to deny
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`institution, the Board “considers the relevance of any differences between the prior
`
`art and arguments presented in the petition and that were ‘previously . . . presented
`
`to the Office.’” Id., 11.
`
`The asserted references were previously considered by the Office during
`
`initial examination or the VIZIO proceedings or are substantially the same prior art.
`
`• Baretz was considered by the Examiner, and by the Board in VIZIO’s
`
`petition. EX1001, 2; EX1044, 9-10, 17-18.
`
`• Shimizu was considered by the Examiner, and discussed in the ’375
`
`specification’s background section. EX1001, 3; id. 2:7-15.
`
`• Tadatsu was similarly considered by the Examiner, and discussed in
`
`the ’375 specification’s background section. EX1001, 2; id. 2:7-15.
`
`Moreover, Petitioners appear to rely on Tadatsu only for a method for
`
`manufacturing a light emitting device comprising a gallium nitride-
`
`based semiconductor such as that shown in Figure 2 of Tadatsu, which
`
`Petitioners state is virtually identical to that in Figure 1 of the ’375.
`
`Pet. 55-58. These teachings are substantially the same as those
`
`provided by other references that the Board has previously considered,
`
`such as Baretz and Nakamura (discussed below).
`
`• Nakamura was considered by the Board in VIZIO’s petition. EX1044,
`
`2. Furthermore, although it was not before the Office during initial
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`
`examination of the ’375, it is cited in this Petition solely for teaching
`
`an InGaN based semiconductor. Pet. 55, 58. The ’375 cites other blue
`
`LED Nakamura references that disclosed InGaN semiconductors and
`
`were considered by the Office during examination. EX1001, 3-4;
`
`EX1002, 97-108 (IDS considered, July 2, 2012).
`
`• Rossotti was cited extensively in VIZIO’s petition as an “undeclared”
`
`secondary reference for the same reasons and figures as in this
`
`Petition. That is, it was used in VIZIO’s obviousness analysis, but
`
`was not expressly acknowledged as being a secondary reference.
`
`IPR2017-00558, Pap. 1, 5-11, 37-38, 48, 52-55 (Dec. 30, 2016).
`
`• Blasse was also cited in VIZIO’s petition as an “undeclared”
`
`secondary reference for the emission spectrum of YAG, and was thus
`
`before the Board. Id., 41, 71.
`
`As for Pinnow, which Petitioners rely on for Ground 1 of the Petition, it was
`
`previously presented to the Examiner during the initial examination as well as to
`
`the Board in VIZIO’s four previous petitions, which were denied. EX1001, 2;
`
`EX1041, 2; EX1042, 7; EX1043, 9; EX1044, 2. And, faced with previous Board
`
`decisions in VIZIO finding that Pinnow was not shown to be analogous art,
`
`Petitioners fail to present any substantially new arguments on this issue. EX1044,
`
`12-17; Pet. 43, 45-49. They reference the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cree,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-02001
`Patent No. 8,309,375 B2
`
`Inc., 818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and assert that the Board ignored it. Pet. 48-
`
`49. Not so. Cree was briefed by Nichia during the VIZIO proceedings. IPR2017-
`
`00558, Pap. 8, 59-60 (Apr. 13, 2017). Moreover, Petitioners fail to rebut any of the
`
`Board’s analyses of Pinnow as non-analogous in the VIZIO petitions. EX1043, 33-
`
`36; EX1044, 12-17. Accordingly, there are no new arguments for the Board to
`
`consider regarding whether Pinnow is analogous art. See Nora Lighting, Inc. v.
`
`Juno Mfg., LLC, IPR2015-00601, Pap. 13, 11-12 (Aug. 12, 2015).
`
`In sum, the same or substantially similar prior art was already considered by
`
`the Examiner and the Board, and the Board should decline Petitioners’ invitation to
`
`retread old ground.7
`
`The General Plastic factors favor denying institution.
`
`B.
`As detailed above, this Petition expressly seeks to learn from Nichia’s
`
`preliminary responses in VIZIO and the Board’s decisions denying institution, with
`
`7 Although not material to these arguments, Nichia notes that Petitioners falsely
`
`accuse the Board of inconsistent findings in VIZIO. Pet. 33. Petitioners confuse
`
`the Board’s finding that Baretz disclosed “a phosphor capable of absorbing a part
`
`of the blue color light,” with respect to Nichia’s related U.S. Patent No. 7,855,092
`
`(“’092”), with the Board’s finding that VIZIO did not establish Baretz discloses a
`
`phosphor that actually “absorbs part of the light emitted by the LED, as opposed to
`
`al