LG Display Co., Ltd.v.Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2016

11244544 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32
571-272-7822 Entered: February 8, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

LG DISPLAY CO., LTD and LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-013621
Patent 7,384,177 B2
____________

Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

1 Case IPR2015-00489 has been joined with this proceeding.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

2

LG Display Co., Ltd. filed a Petition seeking to institute an inter
partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, and 23–27 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,384,177 (“the ’177 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Innovative
Display Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a), the Board instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims.
Paper 12 (“Institution Decision”). Following institution, the proceeding was
joined with IPR2015-00489, filed by LG Electronics, Inc., challenging the
same claims of the ʼ177 patent on the same grounds as in this proceeding.
For the purpose of this Decision, we will refer to LG Display Co., Ltd. and
LG Electronics, Inc., jointly, as “Petitioner.”
During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 20, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner
Response (Paper 24, “Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held on November,
20, 2015, and a copy of the transcript has been made part of the record.
Paper 31 (“Hearing Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Decision is a Final
Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner
has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10,
13–15, 19, 21, 23–25, and 27 of the ʼ177 patent are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) and claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

3

I. BACKGROUND
A. The ʼ177 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ʼ177 patent is titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies.” The
Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
Light emitting assemblies include a tray that forms a
cavity or recess containing one or more light sources. A sheet,
film or substrate is positioned over the cavity or recess for
controlling the light emitted from the assembly. The tray acts as
a back, side or edge reflector, and has one or more secondary
reflective or refractive surfaces.
Ex. 1001, Abstract.
B. Challenged Claims
The ʼ177 patent has two independent claims. They are reproduced
here, with emphasis added to certain elements that will be discussed infra.
1. A light emitting assembly comprising a tray having a
back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity
or recess completely surrounded by the side walls, at least one
light source located, mounted or positioned in the cavity or
recess, and at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the
assembly for controlling the light emitted from the assembly to
fit a particular application, wherein the tray acts as at least one
of a back, side edge, and end edge reflector and has one or more
secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive
surfaces to redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by the
light source in a predetermined manner within the cavity or
recess.
15. A light emitting assembly comprising a tray having a
back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity
or recess completely surrounded by the side walls, at least two
light sources located, mounted or positioned in the cavity or
recess, and at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the
assembly for controlling the light emitted from the assembly to
fit a particular application, wherein the tray acts as at least one
of a back, side edge and end edge reflector and has at least one
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

4

secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive
surface to facilitate better mixing of light rays within the cavity
or recess to produce a desired light output color or uniformity.

C. Related Proceedings
Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement of the ʼ177
patent by Petitioner in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group
LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31,
2013). Paper 5. Patent Owner identifies numerous other civil actions in
which it has asserted infringement of the ʼ177 patent by other defendants.
See Paper 5 for a listing.
D. Claim Construction
The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). The only claim term
the Board construed in its Institution Decision is the term “deformities,”
appearing in all challenged claims. We construed the term as “any change in
the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface
treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Paper 12, 4 (citing
ʼ177 patent, Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 44–48). Neither party has proposed any
other constructions. In light of the foregoing, we see no reason to modify
our previous construction of “deformities” or to construe any other terms.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

5

E. References
Petitioner relies on the following two references from the Petition:2
Melby US 5,054,885 Oct. 8, 1991 Ex. 1006
Nakamura et al., US 5,453,855 Dec. 9, 1993 Ex. 1007

Petitioner relies also on a Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti
Decl.”). Ex. 1004. Likewise, Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 24) is
accompanied by a Declaration of Mr. Kenneth Werner (Werner Decl.”).
Ex. 2016. Deposition transcripts for those witnesses have been entered in
the record as Exhibits 1026 (“Werner Dep.”) and 2015 (“Escuti Dep.”).
F. Grounds Asserted
We instituted trial on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Melby § 103(a) 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19,
21, 23–25, and 27
Nakamura § 102(e) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19,
21, 23, 24, and 26

II. ANALYSIS
A. Overview — Obviousness
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), an invention is not patentable if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying

2 The references are ordered by exhibit number with effective dates
asserted by Petitioner.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

6

factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of skill in the art; and, (4) where in evidence, so-called
secondary considerations, including commercial success, long-felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 1718 (1966).
B. Asserted Obviousness Based On Melby
(Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23–25, and 27)
1. Background
Petitioner contends that these claims would have been obvious over
the teachings of Melby. Pet. 13–22. In support of this contention, Petitioner
provides detailed claim charts and expert testimony through the Escuti
Declaration. Pet. 12–22; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 69–152. Through the claim charts
and expert testimony, Petitioner asserts that Melby’s embodiments
(particularly, Figures 1 and 3) disclose “all the limitations” of the challenged
claims. Pet. 13. Moreover, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary
skill would have been motivated to combine those embodiments. Id.
In response, Patent Owner challenges the sufficiency of Petitioner’s
proofs in several respects that we discuss infra. We note, however, that
most of the claim elements are undisputed. Patent Owner challenges
Petitioner’s assertions only as to certain claim elements, and does not
challenge Petitioner’s presentation of the rationale to combine various
embodiments of Melby in addressing the obviousness challenge to any of
these challenged claims. Pet. 13; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 67–68. As Petitioner
points out, Melby’s embodiments are taught within the same patent. Pet. 13.
Moreover, they are described as alternatives. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 63. Melby
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

7

explains that the structured surface of the Figure 3 embodiment, discussed
infra, may be replaced by the planar surface of Figure 1. Ex. 1006, col. 3, ll.
1–6. Further supporting reasons for combining the embodiments are
presented in the Escuti Declaration, at paragraphs 67–68, which we credit
and adopt, and which are not challenged by Patent Owner. We determine
that, for these reasons, a person of ordinary skill would have combined these
embodiments.
Patent Owner has not presented any evidence of secondary
considerations. We, therefore, have not been given evidence of commercial
success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, or unexpected results
to consider.
The relatively high level of skill in the art is another consideration we
have taken into account. In this determination, we were aided by expert
testimony. According to Dr. Escuti, “a person of ordinary skill in the art
relevant to the ’177 patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in
physics, optics, electrical engineering, or applied mathematics AND 3 years
of work experience (or a graduate degree) in a field related to optical
technology.” Escuti Decl. ¶ 23. Mr. Werner does not take issue with this
testimony, and in fact proposes a similar standard:
In this declaration, I rely on the following definition of a person
of ordinary skill in the art: “a person of ordinary skill in the art
of the patents would hold an undergraduate degree in physics,
material science, electrical engineering, or mathematics and
have one or both of the following: (1) three or more years of
work experience in a field related to optical technology; or (2) a
graduate degree in a field related to optical technology.”
Werner Decl. ¶ 36. We find that Mr. Werner’s definition is too limited, in
that it does not include a person with an undergraduate degree in optics.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

8

We, therefore, do not accept his standard and adopt instead Dr. Escuti’s
more complete definition.
2. Melby Overview
Melby describes a thin light fixture for a backlit flat panel display.
Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 14–16. In one embodiment, the fixture includes a
housing with walls that define an optical cavity having an optical window.
This is illustrated in Figure 3 of Melby, reproduced here:

Figure 3 of Melby shows an embodiment of a lighting fixture wherein a
housing 30, including sidewalls 32, 34, 36, and 38, define an “optical
cavity.” Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 63–65. Light from two partially collimated
light sources 42 and 44 is directed to the prisms of a structured surface 46.
Id. at col. 2, l. 67–col. 3, l. 1.
In another embodiment, a housing, including its walls, defines an
optical cavity. Id. at Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 6–8. The optical cavity has an optical
window with a light transmitting member. Id. at col. 2, ll. 9–11. The light
transmitting member may be transparent or translucent or it may include
structures. Id. at col. 2, ll. 11–14.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

9

We turn now to the individual claims being challenged. We note that
Patent Owner’s Response presents separate arguments for independent
claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 9, 14, and 23 only. Accordingly, we
address only those claims in this Decision. Because they are not separately
argued, the other claims will stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend.
3. Claims 1 and 15
Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 in relation to Melby appears at pages
13–17 of the Petition and in paragraphs 69–81 of the Escuti Declaration.
Petitioner shows where each element of the clam is found in Melby. Patent
Owner contends that Petitioner’s analysis is deficient in several respects.
PO Resp. 9–13. First, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to
demonstrate that the sheet or film substrate disclosed in Melby meets the
requirement of claim 1, i.e., that it control “the light emitted from the
assembly to fit a particular application.” Id. at 9. Petitioner responds that
this limitation is satisfied by the disclosure in Melby regarding “a particular
application,” namely, flat panel displays. Pet. Reply. 5. This conclusion is
supported by the Melby specification. Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 14–16. We
therefore agree with Petitioner.
Petitioner further points out that Melby meets this limitation because
sheet 40 overlying the assembly in Melby has pillow optics and Fresnel
prisms that reflect light and provide for light mixing. Pet. Reply 5–6. We
agree also with this conclusion. See Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 11–14, 30–33;
Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 84, 88, 92–94, 114–16. As Dr. Escuti specifically testifies:
“Melby is directed to a light fixture with a light source of partially
collimated light in a housing with a cavity having a structured surface with a
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

10

plurality of prisms for reflecting light form [sic] the light source out of the
cavity.” Escuti Decl. ¶65 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstract). Finally, Petitioner
demonstrates that this information was presented in the Petition. Pet. Reply
5–7. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis and conclusion
regarding this element. As shown above, they are supported by Melby’s
disclosure and Dr. Escuti’s testimony, and for at least those reasons we
determine that Melby meets this limitation.
Next, Patent Owner argues that Melby does not show “a tray having a
back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or recess
completely surrounded by the side walls,” required by claim 1. PO Resp.
12–13. Patent Owner contends that Figure 3 of Melby, reproduced above,
does not meet this requirement because the fourth wall that completely
surrounds the cavity is missing. Id. at 11–13. Petitioner responds that
Patent Owner’s argument assumes, incorrectly, that Figure 3 of Melby is not
a cross-sectional view. Pet. Reply 7. As Petitioner explains: “Nowhere does
Patent Owner explain how the light fixture of Melby could actually function
as a light fixture according to the invention with an opening on one side.”
Id.
We agree with the reasoning set forth by Petitioner and Petitioner’s
expert, Dr. Escuti, and for those reasons we conclude that a person of
ordinary skill would have recognized that Figure 3 of Melby is a cross-
sectional view, and that the walls of Melby’s fixture meet this claim
requirement. Pet. Reply 9; Escuti Decl. ¶ 71. We are persuaded by, among
other things, Melby’s description of Figure 3 as showing a “housing’ whose
walls 32, 34, 36, and 38 define an “optical cavity.” Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 64–
66. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments on this issue and
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

11

for reasons to those set forth above and in the Petition and Reply, find them
unpersuasive. PO Resp. 12–13. We conclude, therefore, that this element is
described by Melby.
Patent Owner relies on the same unpersuasive arguments for claim 15
proffered with respect to claim 1. PO Resp. 15–16. For the foregoing
reasons, we conclude that claims 1 and 15 are obvious over Melby.
4. Claim 9
Petitioner’s analysis of claim 9 in relation to Melby appears at pages
19 of the Petition and in paragraphs 105–09 of the Escuti Declaration. For
this claim, Patent Owner contends that the requirement, that the “light
emitted from the light sources mixes in the cavity or recess,” is not met by
Melby. PO Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner asserts that in Figures 1 and 3 of
Melby, the light rays are not shown mixing. Id.
Petitioner responds that the light from Melby’s partially collimated
light sources collimates in the cavity and mixes. Pet. Reply (citing Escuti
Decl. ¶ 107). Petitioner further asserts that light from the light sources is
also reflected in the cavity and the reflected light is also mixed. Id.
Petitioner relies also on admissions from Patent Owner’s expert, Mr.
Werner. Id. at 10–11. We note that Mr. Werner testified the light rays in
Figure 3 are “representative.” Werner Dep. 60:3–8. He also agreed that the
light rays emitted from the light sources shown in Figure 3 of Melby could
cross: “That might be - - that might be possible, but it - - that does not
change the conclusions I come to.” Id. at 76:12–16. We find that testimony
compelling evidence that Melby’s figures are not intended to show all light
rays. This was confirmed by Patent Owner’s counsel at oral argument:
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

12

[THE BOARD]: Well, isn't what is happening in the cavity a lot
more complicated than what is shown in Melby, and a physicist
would know that?
[PATENT OWNER’S COUNSEL:] Yeah, look, I think that
that's right. I think that that's right. But I still -- but it is not – it
is not described as, and our expert doesn't understand it to say
that that figure is showing you mixing of light.
Hearing Tr. 28:3–9.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Figures 1 and 3 of Melby
are simplified diagrams that do not show all light rays from partially
collimated light sources 42. Furthermore, we determine that a person of
ordinary skill would recognize that the light rays from the partially
collimated light sources in Melby mix, as called for in the claim. On this
point, in addition to the above evidence, we credit Dr. Escuti’s testimony
that partially collimated light from the light sources, as well as light reflected
from the prisms, mixes in the cavity. Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 105–09. We determine
that this limitation is met and claim 9 is obvious over Melby.
5. Claims 14 and 23
Petitioner’s analysis of claim 14 in relation to Melby appears at page
20 of the Petition and in paragraphs 118–21 of the Escuti Declaration.
Patent Owner contends that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Melby
discloses that the “sheet, film or substrate has deformities for controlling the
light output ray angle distribution to fit a particular application.” PO Resp.
15 (citing Werner Decl. 49).
Patent Owner makes the same argument with respect to Petitioner’s
analysis of claim 23. Id. at 17. Petitioner answers by referring to its
response for claim 1, as the same argument is presented by Patent Owner for
that claim. See supra.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

13

For the reasons stated above, we determine that claims 14 and 23 are
obvious over Melby.
C. Asserted Anticipation Based on Nakamura
(Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 26)
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23, 24,
and 26 are anticipated by Nakamura. Pet. 22–32. In support of this
contention, Petitioner provides detailed claim charts and expert testimony
through the Escuti Declaration. Pet. 25–32; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 155–224.
Through the claim charts and expert testimony, Petitioner asserts that
Nakamura meets each element of the challenged claims. Pet. 24
In response, Patent Owner again challenges the sufficiency of
Petitioner’s proof in several respects that we discuss infra. PO Resp. 17–19.
We note, however, that, as was the case for the challenge based on Melby,
supra, most of the claim elements are undisputed. Thus, Patent Owner
challenges Petitioner’s assertions only as to certain claim elements. The
unchallenged elements will not be discussed, nor will claims that have not
been separately argued by Patent Owner. See Paper 13, 2–3. Based on the
arguments and evidence presented in the Petition, we conclude that
Petitioner has met its burden of proving anticipation of these claims by
Nakamura.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

14

1. Nakamura Overview
Nakamura describes a liquid crystal display device that is back-
illuminated by means of LEDs. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 9–10. Nakamura
describes a shallow box-form holder and a liquid crystal panel installed in
the front surface opening of the holder. Id. col. 2, ll. 51–54; col. 4, ll. 49–55.
Nakamura also describes a light source mounted in the cavity of the holder.
Id. col. 2, ll. 59–60; col. 4, ll. 51–53. The inside surface of the holder is
reflection-treated and a light diffusing plate is installed in the opening of the
holder. Id. col. 2, ll. 60–64, col. 4, ll. 54–65.
This is illustrated by Figure 2 of Nakamura, reproduced here:

IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

15

Figure 2 of Nakamura shows a liquid crystal display device having
LEDs 2, liquid crystal display panel 3, and shallow box-form holder 24. Ex.
1007, col. 2, ll. 10–55.
We turn now to the individual claims being challenged. We note that
Patent Owner’s Response presents separate arguments for independent claim
1 and 15, and dependent claims 14 and 23 only. Accordingly, we address
only those claims in this Decision.
2. Claims 1 and 15
Petitioner’s analysis of these claims in relation to Nakamura appears
at pages 23–28 and 30–31 of the Petition and in paragraphs 155–67 and
198–203 of the Escuti Declaration.
Patent Owner contends that the Petition does not identify the claimed
“continuous side walls” and “back wall” in Nakamura. PO Resp. 17–18
(citing Werner Decl. ¶ 55). Petitioner responds by pointing out that
Nakamura’s shallow box-form holder 24 depicted in Figure 2, supra, has
“continuous” side walls 24a and 24b and only has an opening on the front
surface. Pet. Reply 14–16. Petitioner also identifies the bottom surface of
the holder as the back wall. Id. at 15–16. These assertions are supported by
the Escuti Declaration (¶ 157).
Petitioner further points out that Patent Owner’s expert should not be
credited on this issue. PO Reply 15. Specifically, Mr. Werner admitted that
his testimony was intended to rebut the Petition, and, therefore, it was not
necessary for him to determine whether Nakamura shows four continuous
walls. Werner Dep. 141:1–16. Instead of discussing what is disclosed in
Nakamura, Mr. Werner’s declaration focuses on alleged deficiencies in the
Petition. Werner Decl. ¶¶ 54–55. Under our rules, expert testimony that
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

16

does not have a proper basis is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.65(a).
Under the circumstances, we credit Dr. Escuti’s opinion on this issue
over Mr. Werner’s. We determine that for the reasons presented by
Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would understand Nakamura’s holder
shown in Figure 2 to have a back wall and continuous side walls. We
conclude, therefore, that claims 1 and 15 are anticipated by Nakamura.
2. Claims 14 and 23
Petitioner’s analysis of these claims in relation to Nakamura appears
at pages 29–30 and 31–32 of the Petition and in paragraphs and 193–197 and
212–216 of the Escuti Declaration.
Patent Owner contends that the Petition fails to demonstrate that
Nakamura discloses a “sheet, film or substrate has deformities for
controlling the light output ray angle distribution to fit a particular
application.” PO Resp. 18. According to Patent Owner, there is no
“particular application” mentioned in the Petition. Id.
Petitioner responds that Nakamura discloses a particular application,
namely, a liquid crystal display device that is backlit with LEDs. Pet. Reply
16. We agree. This conclusion is supported by the record including Dr.
Escuti’s testimony (Escuti Decl. ¶ 196–97) as well as the Nakamura
specification. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 9–10 (“The present invention relates to a
liquid crystal display device which is back-illuminated by means of LEDs”).
Petitioner further explains that Nakamura discloses a film with a diffusing
effect for controlling the emitted light. Pet. Reply at 17. We agree with this
conclusion, which is supported by Dr. Escuti’s testimony (Escuti Decl.
¶ 195) as well as the Nakamura specification. Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 43–61.
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

17

We determine that for at least for these reasons and those set forth by
Petitioner, this element is met by Nakamura. We conclude, therefore, that
Nakamura anticipates these claims.
D. Real Party-in-Interest and Statutory Bar
Patent Owner contends that the Petition is insufficient for failure to
name two real parties-in-interest: LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics
U.S.A. Inc. PO Resp. 20–21. Patent Owner also contends that the Petition
is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Id. at 21–27. The same arguments were
raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 26–34. We
determined in our Institution Decision that Patent Owner failed to provide
convincing evidence that LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A.
Inc. are real parties-in-interest. Paper 12, 5–6. We also determined that
Patent Owner failed to provide sufficient evidence of a bar under § 315(b).
Id. at 6–7.
Patent Owner’s Response relies on the same evidence and arguments
that we considered in our Institution Decision. For the reasons stated in our
Institution Decision, we determine that Patent Owner fails to prove that the
Petition does not name the real parties-in-interest or that it is barred under
§ 315(b). Paper 12, 5–7.
IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that this is a final written decision of the Board under
35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the
decision must comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R.
§ 90.2;

IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

18

FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21,
23–25, and 27 of U.S. Patent 7,384,177 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a); and
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23,
24, and 26 of U.S. Patent 7,384,177 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
IPR2014-01362
Patent 7,384,177 B2

19

PETITIONER:
Robert G. Pluta
Amanda K. Streff
Baldine B. Paul
Anita Y. Lam
MAYER BROWN LLP
rpluta@mayerbrown.com
astreff@mayerbrown.com
bpaul@mayerbrown.com
alam@mayerbrown.com

PATENT OWNER:
Justin B. Kimble
Jeffrey R. Bragalone
BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
jkimble@bcpc-law.com
jbragalone@bcpc-law.com