UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE
`
`THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IKEA Supply AG
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,640,733 to Hsieh et al. IPR Case No.: IPR2024-00972
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 1-5 AND 7 OF U.S. PATENT 9,640,733
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW ........................................................................................... 1
`A. Real-Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ...................................... 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ................................................ 2
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and Service
`Information under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ....................................................... 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ........................................... 4
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) .......... 4
`V.
`IPR REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ....................................... 4
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ........................................ 4
`B.
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested ....................................................................................................... 4
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’733 PATENT .............................................................. 6
`A. The Challenged Claims ................................................................................... 6
`B. Priority and Effective Filing Date .................................................................. 6
`C. Overview of the ’733 Patent ........................................................................... 6
`1. General Background to the ’733 Patent ...................................................... 6
`2. The ’733 Patent LED Package Description ................................................. 8
`1.
`Prosecution History ................................................................................... 13
`2. The ’733 Patent Claims ............................................................................. 13
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ..................... 18
`VIII. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §§ 314(A)
`AND 325(D) ................................................................................................... 19
`IX. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 22
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Kishikawa ..................................................................................................... 23
`B. Nakashima .................................................................................................... 27
`C. Umeda ........................................................................................................... 31
`D. Kuramoto ...................................................................................................... 35
`E. Bando ............................................................................................................ 39
`F. Other Background Prior Art ......................................................................... 41
`X.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 42
`XI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ........................................................ 43
`A. GROUND 1: Anticipation by Kishikawa ..................................................... 43
`1. Claim 1 ...................................................................................................... 44
`2. Claim 2 ...................................................................................................... 58
`3. Claim 3 ...................................................................................................... 60
`4. Claim 4 ...................................................................................................... 60
`5. Claim 5 ...................................................................................................... 61
`B. GROUND 2: Anticipation by Nakashima .................................................... 62
`1. Claim 1 ...................................................................................................... 62
`2. Claim 2 ...................................................................................................... 74
`3. Claim 3 ...................................................................................................... 75
`4. Claim 4 ...................................................................................................... 76
`5. Claim 5 ...................................................................................................... 77
`C. GROUND 3: Umeda in View of Bando and a POSITA’s Common
`Knowledge ................................................................................................... 78
`1. Claim 1 ...................................................................................................... 78
`2. Claim 2 ...................................................................................................... 92
`3. Claim 3 ...................................................................................................... 93
`4. Claim 4 ...................................................................................................... 94
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`5. Claim 5 ...................................................................................................... 95
`6. Claim 7 ...................................................................................................... 96
`D. GROUND 4: Anticipation by Kuramoto ...................................................... 97
`1. Claim 1 ...................................................................................................... 98
`2. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 107
`3. Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 107
`4. Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 108
`5. Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 109
`6. Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 109
`E. GROUND 5: Obviousness over Bando ...................................................... 111
`F. GROUND 6: Obviousness over Kishikawa, Nakashima, or Kuramoto ... 113
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 113
`XIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 113
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, (PTAB. Feb. 13, 2020) ............................................................... 22
`
`
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited,
`IPR2018-00943, Paper 8 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018).................................................... 43
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
` IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (March 20, 2020) .................................................. 19, 20
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
` IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................................. 19
`
`In re Collier,
` 397 F.2d 1003 (CCPA 1968) ................................................................................. 19
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry,
` 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 6
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
` 522 F.3d 1299, 1303-06 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 6
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.,
` 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 112
`
`Vibrant Media Corp. v. General Electric Co.,
` IPR2013-00172, Paper 50 (PTAB July 29, 2013) ................................................. 43
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc.,
` 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 41, 43
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Table of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,640,733 (“the ’733 patent”)
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 9,640,733 (“’733 FH”)
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Lebby Regarding Invalidity of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,640,733
`U.S. Patent No. 7,771,093 to Kishikawa et al. (“Kishikawa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,462,870 to Nakashima et al. (“Nakashima”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 2014-041966 by Umeda et al.
`(“Umeda”)
`Certified English Translation of Umeda
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0124812 by Kuramoto et al.
`(“Kuramoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,719,024 to Bando (“Bando”)
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions – Claim Chart of the ’733
`Patent to IKEA Ledare GX53 LED Bulb
`U.S. Patent No. 7,964,943 to Seo et al. (“Seo”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,415,681 to Takada (“Takada”)
`
`Preliminary Opinion in German Nullity Proceeding for EP2947705
`English Translation of Preliminary Opinion in German Nullity
`Proceeding for EP2947705
`Scheduling Order issued in Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. IKEA
`US Retail LLC, et al., No. 6:23-cv-00481-AM-DTG (W.D. Tx. Jul.
`5, 2023)
`
`
`
` v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Description
`Claim Construction Order issued in Everlight Electronic Co., Ltd. v.
`Walmart Inc., No. 23-cv-000439-AM-DTG (W.D. Tx. Jun. 9, 2023)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,190 to Chikugawa (“Chikugawa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,274,924 to Carey et al. (“Carey”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,097,937 to Bogner et al. (“Bogner”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0139949 by Tanda et
`al. (“Tanda”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,035,125 to Abe (“Abe”)
`W.I.P.O Publication No. WO2013118072A2 to Bierhuizen
`(“Bierhuizen”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael S. Lebby
`
`Attorney Declaration of Joseph R. Klinicki
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`IKEA Supply AG (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for inter partes review of
`
`Claims 1-5 and 7 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,640,733 (“the ’733
`
`patent”) (Ex-1001). The Challenged Claims should be canceled because they do not
`
`claim anything new or inventive; they claim a previously known light emitting diode
`
`(LED) carrier with a protruding electrode configuration.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW
`A. Real-Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)
`A real-party-in-interest in this petition is IKEA Supply AG (“ISAG”), which
`
`has a place of business at Grüssenweg 15, 4133 Pratteln, Switzerland. ISAG is a
`
`subsidiary of Inter IKEA Holding BV (“Inter IKEA”), which has a place of business
`
`at Olof Palmestraat 1, Delft, Zuid-Holland, 2616. IKEA US Retail LLC and IKEA
`
`North America Services, LLC, of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, are real-parties-in-
`
`interest as they are currently named as Defendants in the district court proceeding
`
`identified in §II(B), infra, and are related through contracts, franchise agreements,
`
`and/or indemnification agreements with Inter IKEA and/or ISAG. OSRAM Opto
`
`Semiconductors Gmbh, of Regensburg, Germany, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of
`
`Suwon-si, South Korea, Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd, of Ansan-si, South Korea,
`
`Philips Lumileds Lighting LLC, of San Jose, California, Bridgelux, Inc. of Fremont,
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`California, Shenzhen Smalite Semiconductor Co., Ltd., of Shenzhen, China, and/or
`
`Intematix, Inc., of Fremont, California, may be real-parties-in-interest insofar as they
`
`supply components to ISAG that Patent Owner has accused of infringement and have
`
`certain contractual and/or indemnification obligations to ISAG in relation to those
`
`accused products.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)
`This petition is related to three complaints filed by Patent Owner involving the
`
`’733 patent:
`
`1) Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. IKEA US Retail LLC, et al. (2:23-cv-
`
`00126-JRG) (E.D. Tx. Mar. 27, 2023), complaint served June 1, 2023, and
`
`subsequently voluntarily dismissed on July 5, 2023;
`
`2) Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. IKEA US Retail LLC, et al. (6:23-cv-
`
`00481-AM) (W.D. Tx. Jul. 5, 2023), complaint served July 6, 2023, which is pending
`
`(“IKEA-Everlight Litigation”); and
`
`3) Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Walmart Inc. (6:23-cv-00439-AM-DTG)
`
`(W.D. Tx. Jun. 9, 2023), which is pending (“Walmart-Everlight Litigation”).
`
`Everlight asserted EP2947705, a foreign counterpart to the ’733 patent, against
`
`IKEA Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and IKEA of Sweden AB in Germany in the
`
`District Court of Dusseldorf Civil Chamber. That case is pending. Two nullity
`
`proceedings have been filed against EP2947705 with the German Federal Patent
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Court by SLV GmbH (2 Ni 16/23 (EP)) and IKEA Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (2
`
`Ni 1/24 (EP)). A copy of the initial preliminary opinion finding that the claims of
`
`EP2947705 likely lack novelty and/or inventive step is attached as Ex-1013, and an
`
`English machine translation of the preliminary opinion is attached as Ex-1014.
`
`The undersigned is unaware of any other pending judicial or administrative
`
`matters that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in the proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and Service
`Information under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)
`Petitioner designates the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Backup Counsel
`Michael J. Bonella (Reg. No. 41,628)
`Flaster Greenberg P.C.
`1717 Arch Street, Suite 3300
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215-587-5684
`Facsimile: 215-279-9394
`michael.bonella@flastergreenberg.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph R. Klinicki (Reg. No. 68,505)
`Flaster Greenberg P.C.
`1717 Arch Street, Suite 3300
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215-587-5687
`Facsimile: 215-279-9394
`joseph.klinicki@flastergreenberg.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Coraleine Kitt (Reg. No. 72,778)
`Flaster Greenberg P.C.
`1717 Arch Street, Suite 3300
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215-587-5684
`Facsimile: 215-279-9394
`coraleine.kitt@flastergreenberg.com
`
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Flaster
`
`Greenberg P.C., 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3300, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Petitioner
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`also consents to and prefers electronic service by emailing IKEA-Everlight-
`
`IPRs@flastergreenberg.com and counsel of record (shown above).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`Petitioner submits that the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) was properly
`
`paid using the USPTO Financial Manager.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 13,572 words, as
`
`counted by the word-processing program (Microsoft Word for Office 365) used to
`
`generate this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents,
`
`table of authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, table of exhibits, and
`
`this certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word
`
`limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`V.
`
`IPR REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’733 patent is available for inter partes review.
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review on the
`
`identified grounds.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the claims 1-5 and 7 (“Challenged Claims”)
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`be cancelled based on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Ground of
`Unpatentability
`
`’733 Patent
`Claim(s)
`
` Basis for Rejection
` under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`1-5
`
`1-5
`
`Anticipated by Kishikawa (Ex-
`1004)
`
`Anticipated by Nakashima (Ex-
`1005)
`
`Ground 3
`
`1-5 and 7
`
`Obvious over Umeda (Ex-1006
`and Ex-1007 (Translation)) in
`view of Bando (Ex-1009) and/or
`the ordinary level of skill in the
`art (“OLSA”)
`
`Ground 4
`
`1-5 and 7
`
`Anticipated by Kuramoto (Ex-
`1008)
`
`Ground 5
`
`Ground 6
`
`7
`
`1-5
`
`Each of Grounds 1, 2, or 4 in
`view of Bando and/or the OLSA
`
`Obvious over any of Kishikawa,
`Nakashima, or Kuramoto in view
`of OLSA
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’733 PATENT
`
`A.
`The Challenged Claims
`The Challenged Claims generally relate to light emitting devices including an
`
`LED carrier having an electrode portion and a housing portion (Ex-1001 at Abstract;
`
`14:6-20). Claim 1 is the only independent claim. Claims 2-5 and 7 depend from
`
`claim 1.
`
`B.
`Priority and Effective Filing Date
`The ’733 patent claims the benefit of Taiwanese Patent Application No.
`
`103118060, filed on May 23, 2014, and Taiwanese Patent Application No.
`
`104103527, filed on Feb. 3, 2015. Petitioner applies May 23, 2014 as the effective
`
`filing date here, without conceding that the ’733 patent is entitled to it. See
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1303-06 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`As the effective filing date of the ’733 patent is after March 16, 2013, post-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 apply. Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018).
`
`C. Overview of the ’733 Patent
`1. General Background to the ’733 Patent
`
`Dr. Michael Lebby explains that LEDs are typically small and fragile and are
`
`included in an “LED package” (Ex-1003 at § 6.1). An LED package protects the
`
`LED, provides mechanical strength, electrical connections, and heat dissipation (Ex-
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`1003 at ¶¶ 61-63). The LED package may also include an encapsulant having
`
`phosphors to convert the wavelength of emitted light (e.g., blue) to a desired color
`
`(e.g., white) (Ex-1003 at § 6.4). As Dr. Lebby explains, all of this was well-known
`
`to a POSITA (e.g., Takada shows an LED chip 4 inside of an LED package (Ex-1003
`
`at §§ 6.2-6.4; Ex-1012 at Fig. 1; 6:21-65; 9:31-10:16)).
`
`
`
`LED
`Package
`
`Takada FIG. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`The ’733 patent admits that both “LEDs” and “carrier leadframes” were well-
`
`known (Ex-1001 at 1:26-58), stating “dicing-type carrier leadframe[s]” have been
`
`used in “recent years” for manufacturing LED packages (Ex-1001 at 1:40-42). The
`
`’733 patent admits that it was well-known for a “plastic body” to be “molded on a
`
`metal sheet material,” using a “die bonding process” to mechanically bond the LED
`
`to the package, “wire bonding” the LED to the package electrodes to create electrical
`
`connections, and “encapsulat[e]” the LED (Ex-1001 at 1:40-47). Dr. Lebby agrees
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`that these processes/structures were well-known (Ex-1003 at §§ 6.1-6.6).
`
`The focus of the ’733 patent is alleged manufacturing problems including
`
`creating dust while dicing, electrically testing each LED in a sheet of LED packages
`
`before cutting into individual LED packages, and cutting LED packages
`
`simultaneously (Ex-1001 at 1:47-49; 1:51-58; 5:24-6:25). Despite the ’733 patent’s
`
`focus on manufacturing, the ’733 patent does not claim a manufacturing process (See
`
`Ex-1001 at 14:6-49). Rather, the ’733 patent claims a “light emitting device”
`
`divorced from the disclosed manufacturing processes (Id.). In any event, Dr. Lebby
`
`explains that the manufacturing processes described in the ’733 patent were well-
`
`known (See Ex-1003 at § 6.6), for example, as exemplified by Takada (Ex-1003 at §
`
`6.6.1; Ex-1012 at 11:3-12, 14:48-53, FIGs. 11-16) and Bierhuizen (Ex-1003 at §
`
`6.6.4; Ex-1022 at ¶¶ [0019]-[0020], Fig. 2).
`
`2. The ’733 Patent LED Package Description
`
`The ’733 patent describes LED packages with conventional LED components,
`
`such as an LED, electrodes, a housing, and an encapsulant (See infra §VI(C)(4); Ex-
`
`1001 at 1:43-45). The ’733 patent describes different configurations of the claimed
`
`“electrode portion” relative to the “housing” (Ex-1001 at 14:6-49). But no
`
`explanation is provided as to why these configurations are supposedly inventive.
`
`The ’733 patent describes that a “carrier includes a housing and at least one
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`electrode portion” (Ex-1001 at 3:9-10). The carrier 110 of FIG. 1 comprises a
`
`housing 111 and two electrode portions 112 having wing portions 112A, which each
`
`have a central protruding area 112A1 and two outer edge areas 112A1, 112A2 (Ex-
`
`1001 at 3:26-29; 6:40-44). In FIG. 1, “each of the edge areas 112A2 comprises an
`
`electrode portion cross section, and the electrode portion cross sections are level with
`
`a part of the housing cross section 111A of the housing 111” (Ex-1001 at 6:44-47).
`
`
`
`
`
`Housing cross
`section 111A
`
`“level with”
`
`electrode portion
`cross section of
`112A2
`
`
`
`The ’733 Patent FIG. 1 (Annotated)
`In the embodiment of FIG. 5, “the wing portion 112A of the electrode portion
`
`112 comprises a central protruding area 112A1 and two outer edge areas 112A2” (Ex-
`
`1001 at 6:49-53). Regarding FIG. 5, the ’733 patent states that the “electrode portion
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`cross section of the electrode portion 112 is not level with the housing cross section
`
`111A of the housing 111” (Ex-1001 at 6:49-53). According to the ’733 patent, the
`
`“additional lateral area” of the “not level” electrode relative to the housing cross
`
`sections allegedly “increase[s] the binding force with the solder, so as to increase the
`
`component bonding strength of the light emitting devices” (Ex-1001 at 6:54-58).
`
`However, the ’733 patent does not identify any electrode cross section in FIG. 5.
`
`Examples electrode cross sections that can be drawn are provided for illustration.
`
`
`
`
`
`“additional
`lateral area”
`
`Housing cross
`section 111A
`
`“not level
`with”
`
`electrode portion
`cross section of 112
`
`The ’733 Patent FIG. 5 (Annotated)
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`FIG. 6 illustrates another configuration of a carrier 110 having housing 111
`
`and an electrode portion 112 (Ex-1001 at 2:43-44; 8:51-60). Although not identified
`
`in FIG. 6 (or any figure), the ’733 patent describes that an LED chip is carried within
`
`the carrier and covered by an encapsulant, such as epoxy resin (Ex-1001 at 6:17-20).
`
`The FIG. 6 configuration has an electrode portion 112 having a central area 112A1
`
`and wing portions 112A that protrude from the housing 111 (Ex-1001 at 8:53-60).
`
`FIG. 6’s embodiment has a housing cross section 111A (green). The ’733 patent does
`
`not identify any electrode cross sections for Figure 6.
`
`At least two
`electrode
`edge areas
`
`Electrode
`Central
`Area
`Protruding
`from edge
`areas
`
`Housing cross
`section
`
`
`
`The ’733 Patent FIG. 6 (Annotated)
`
`FIG. 9 of the ’733 patent describes another example in which the “edge cross
`
`sections” of electrode edge 112A2 are described as “sloping surfaces” and the wing
`
`portion 112A is described as not being coplanar with the cross section 111A of
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`housing 111 (Ex-1001 at 8:43-48).
`
`LED chip with
`encapsulant
`
`Housing
`(111)
`
`Carrier
`(110)
`
`Housing cross
`section 111A
`
`Electrode
`central area
`112A1
`
`Edge cross
`sections of
`electrode edge
`112A2
`
`
`
`The ’733 Patent FIG. 9 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`While other housing/electrode configurations are discussed, none are described
`
`as novel or advantageous. Nor is any configuration touted as beneficial over another
`
`configuration. As the ’733 patent admits, LED packages having a plastic body
`
`molded on a metal sheet, an LED that was die bonding to the package, wire bonds for
`
`electrically connecting the LED to the electrode, and an encapsulant for encapsulating
`
`the LED were all well-known (Ex-1001 at 1:26-47).
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`3. Prosecution History
`
`The ’733 patent was filed as U.S. App. No. 14/720,230 on May 22, 2015 (Ex-
`
`1001 at Cover). A restriction requirement was issued, alleging that the “application
`
`contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species I (Fig. 1), and
`
`species II (Fig. 5), species III (Fig. 6), species IV (Fig. 7), Species 5 (Fig. 8), Species
`
`6 (Fig. 9), Species 7 (Fig. 10), Species 8 (Fig. 11), Species 9 (Fig. 12A-D), Species
`
`10 (Figure 13A-16), Species 11 (Fig. 17A-D), Species 12 (Fig. 18A-22)” (Ex-1002
`
`at p. 262). Applicant elected “Species II (Fig. 5) for further examination and
`
`prosecution” and filed application claims 11-25 (Ex-1002 at p. 271). Application
`
`claims 11 and 15-25 issued as the ’733 patent claims 1-12 (Ex-1002 at p. 510).
`
`4. The ’733 Patent Claims
`
`Claim 1’s “light emitting device” has just five structural elements: an “LED
`
`chip,” an “encapsulant,” and a “carrier” comprising “at least one electrode portion”
`
`and a “housing” (Ex-1001 at 14:6-13). The claims are drawn to the FIG. 5 species
`
`where the electrode central area and edge areas protrude from the housing. FIG. 7 is
`
`similar to FIG. 5 and is often referred to in this Petition because FIG. 7 provides a
`
`clearer illustration. In sum, what the ’733 patent attempted to claim as inventive was
`
`an electrode extending from a housing, having a central area 112A1 and an edge area
`
`112A2, as shown in FIG. 5, where the central area 112A1 protrudes from edge area
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`112A2.
`
`
`
`Housing Cross
`Section 111A
`
`Edge Area Cross
`Sections 111A2
`
`Central Area
`112A1
`
`’733 Patent FIG. 5 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Housing Cross
`Section 111A
`
`Central Area
`112A1
`
`Edge Area
`Cross Sections
`111A2
`
`
`’733 Patent FIG. 7 (Annotated)
`
`Claim 1’s limitations relate to the configuration of the claimed “electrode
`
`portion” relative to the “housing” and can be described referencing FIG. 5 (Exhibit
`
`1001 at 14:12-20). The claimed “carrier” comprises “at least one electrode portion”
`
`(Ex-1001 at 14:8-11) and a “housing,” the housing at least partially covering the at
`
`least one electrode portion (Ex-1001 at 14:8-13), as shown below in FIG. 5.
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Electrode
`portion
`
`Housing
`Partially
`Covering
`Electrode
`
`
`
`The ’733 Patent FIG. 5 (Annotated)
`
`Claim 1 requires that the “at least one electrode portion further comprises a
`
`central area and two edge areas,” the central area and the two edge areas “protrude
`
`from a housing cross section,” the central area “protrudes from the two edge areas,”
`
`as shown with reference to FIG. 5, below (Ex-1001 at 14:15-16; 18-20).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`Edge Area
`112A2
`
`Central Area
`112A1
`
`Housing Cross
`Section 111A
`
`The ’733 Patent FIG. 5 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`Claim 1 states that the electrode portion “comprises at least an electrode portion
`
`cross section” (Ex-1001 at 14:8-11), the electrode portion cross section is “located on
`
`at least one of the two edge areas” (Ex-1001 at 14:17-18), the housing has a “housing
`
`cross section” (Ex-1001 at 14:8-13), and “the housing cross section and the electrode
`
`portion cross section are not level with one another” (Ex-1001 at 14:13-15; See FIG.
`
`6, below).
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Housing cross
`section 111A
`
`“not level
`
`electrode portion
`cross section of 112
`
`
`
`The ’733 Patent FIG. 5 (Annotated)
`
`Dependent claims 2-3 provide further limitations regarding the electrode
`
`portion shape and positioning of its cross section(s), while claims 4 and 5 are directed
`
`to the housing cross section shape and positioning (Ex-1001 at 14:21-33). Claim 7
`
`relates to an antioxidant layer (Ex-1001 at 14:34-37). None of these elements are
`
`new or inventive.
`
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`A POSITA in the field of the ’733 patent at the time of the effective filing date
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`would have (1) a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a
`
`comparable field of study, and (2) at least three years of professional experience with
`
`semiconductor optoelectronic devices and packaging (Ex-1003 at ¶ 33). This
`
`description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill might make up for
`
`less experience, and additional experience could make up for a lower education level
`
`(for example, an M.S. in any of the above fields and two years of practical experience
`
`would qualify one as a POSITA) (Id.).
`
`VIII. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §§
`314(A) AND 325(D)
`
`Each factor regularly considered under § 314(a) weighs in favor of institution
`
`
`
`or is neutral. General Plastics does not apply, as this is the only IPR filed against the
`
`’733 patent, so the Board can satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper
`
`19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential: §II.B.4.i).
`
`Factors considered under § 314(a) related to parallel district court litigations
`
`weigh in favor of institution. Each factor set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (March 20, 2020) (precedential) are addressed below:
`
`1. District Court Stay: Favors Institution. On May 29, 2024, the parties
`
`mutually agree to request a temporary one month stay in the IKEA-
`
`Everlight litigation, and such a stay favors institution. Apple Inc. v.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,640,733
`IPR2024-00972
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020).
`
`2. Proximity of Trial Date: Favors Institution. Jury selection/trial has
`
`been scheduled for November 10, 2025 in the IKEA-Everlight Litigation
`
`(Ex-1015), which is close to the projected statutory deadline for this IPR.
`
`It is unlikely that Court would hold the trial if this IPR is instituted and
`
`a final written decision is imminent. A motion to move the trial date is
`
`likely if this IPR is instituted, particularly in view of the requested stay.
`
`Further, given that the claims of the ’733 patent were found indefinite
`
`(Ex-1016 at 2-3), it is unlikely that the claims of the ’733 patent will be
`
`litigated at any upcoming trial.
`
`3. Investment in Parallel Proceedings: Favors Institution. Although the
`
`IKEA-Everlight