8/9/2019 06-726a-I

1/77

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,Pla in t i f f ,

v .AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION;AU OPTRONICS CORPORATIONAMERICA; CHI MElOPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION;and CHI MEl OPTOELECTRONICSUSA, INC.,

Defendants .

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION,P l a i n t i f f ,

v .LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. andLG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC.,

Civ i l Action No. 06-726-JJF

Civ i l Action No. 07-357-JJF

Gaspare J . Bono, Esquire; R. Tyler Goodwyn, IV, Esqui re ; Lora A.Brzezynski , Esquire and Cass W. Chris tenson , Esquire o f MCKENNALONG & ALDRIDGE LLP, Washington, D.C.Richard D. Kirk, Esqui re ; Ashley B. St i t z e r , Esquire and StephenB. Brauerman, Esquire o f BAYARD P.A. , Wilm ingto n, De lawar e.

Attorneys fo r LG Display Co., Ltd and LG Display America, Inc .Vincent K. Yip, Esqui re ; Peter J . Wied, Esquire and Terry D.Garnet t , Esquire o f PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP, LosAngeles, Cal i fo rn ia .Ron E. Shulman, Esquire and Ju l i e M. Holloway, Esquire o f WILSONSONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Palo Alto , Cal i fo rn ia .M. Craig Tyler , Esquire and Brian D. Range, Esquire o f WILSONSONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Aust in , Texas.Richard H. Morse, Esquire; John W. Shaw, Esqui re ; Karen L.

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

2/77

Pasca le , Esqui re and Andrew A. Lundgren, Esquire of YOUNG CONAWAYSTARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.Attorneys fo r AU Optr on ic s Co rpo r at ion and AU OptronicsCorpora t ion America.

o PIN IO N

February I , 2010Wilmington, Delaware.

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

3/77

Farnan

These p ro ce ed in gs in vo lv e t h ree re l a t ed pa ten t infr ingementcases involving 23 pa ten t s . In the f i r s t - f i l e d ac t ion , LGDisplay Co., L td . ("LGD") a l l eges infr ingem ent o f n ine as se r tedpa ten t s ( co l lec t ive ly , th e "LGD Patents") aga ins t AU OptronicsCorporat ion ("AUO") and Chi Mei Optoe lec t ron ics Corporat ion("CMO"). AUO and CMO have a lso brought sep ara te a ct io ns a ga in stLGD and LG Display America, Inc . ("LGD America") a l leg inginfr ingement of e ig ht p ate nts as se r ted by AUO and s ix pa ten t sas se r ted by CMO.

Proceedings with respec t to CMO have been s tayed . The Courtrequi red th e pa r t i e s to reduce the number of pa ten t s and cla imsas se r ted to a t o t a l of four pa ten t s and seven cla ims pe r s ide . 1As a r e s u l t , LGD i den t i f i ed the fo l lowing pa ten t s and cla ims fo rt r i a l aga ins t AUO: U.s . Patent No. 5,019,002 (claim 8) i U.S.Patent No. 5 ,8 25 ,4 49 (c laim s 10 and 11) i U.S. Paten t No.6 ,81 5,32 1 (claim s 7, 17 and 19) and U.s. Paten t No. 7,218,374(claim 9 ). AUO ident i f i ed the fo l lowing four pa ten t s and cla imsfo r t r i a l aga ins t LGD and LGD America: U.s . Patent No. 6,778,160

The Court notes t ha t , in co ntra ve ntio n of th e s p i r i t ofthe Cour t ' s o rde r reducing the number of cla ims to be t r i ed int h i s case , the pa r t i e s chose to a s se r t severa l dependent c la ims .In the case of AUO's a ss er te d p a te n ts , th e asse r t ion of numerousdependent cla ims has expanded the number of cla ims as se r ted fromthe seven t h a t the Court ordered as a means of s t reaml in ing t h i scase to a t o t a l of 16 c la ims . Simi la r ly , LGD's se lec t ion hasre su lte d in a t o t a l of 11 c la ims being presen ted to the Court .

1

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

4/77

(claims 1 and 3) i U.S. P a t e n t No. 6,689,629 (claims 7 and 16) iU.S. P a t e n t No. 7 ,1 25 ,1 57 (claim 1) and U.S. P a t e n t No. 7,090,506(claims 7 and 17).

A bench t r i a l was h e l d on the cla ims brought by t h e p a r t i e sand was b if u r ca te d i n t o two phases . The f i r s t phase of t r i a l wash e l d from June 2-8, 2009, and addressed AUO's i nf ri ng ement c la im sa g a i n s t LGD. The se co nd pha se o f t r i a l was held from June 16-22,2009, and addressed LGD's i nf ri ng emen t c la ims a g a i n s t AUO.

The cla ims and countercla ims f o r in f r ingement andd e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n t h i s case a r i s e under t h e p a t e n t laws oft h e United S t a t e s , T i t l e 35, United S t a t e s Code. Accordingly ,t h e Court has s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s a c t i o npursuan t t o 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) , and 2201(a). Personalj u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s e x i s ts pursuan t t o 10 Del. C. 3104, t h e Delaware long-arm s t a t u t e . D . l . 1170 a t 12. Likewise,venue i n t h i s d i s t r i c t i s a p p r o p r i a t e under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) ,(c ) and (d) and 1400. N e i t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n nor venue i s

c o n t e s t e d by t h e p a r t i e s .This Memorandum Opinion c o n s t i t u t e s t h e C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law on the cla ims brought by t h e p a r t i e s .BACKGROUND

I . The Part ies

LGD, formerly named LG P h i l l i p s LCD Co., L t d . , i s a Koreanc o r p o r a t i o n with a p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i n Korea. D . l . 1170 a t Exh.

2

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

5/77

1, St ipu la ted Fact NO.1 . LGD America i s a Cal i fo rn iacorpora t ion with a place of business in San Jose, Cal i fo rn ia .Id . , St ipu la ted Fact NO.2 . LGD and LGD America are col lec t ive lyre fe r red to as "LGD." Id . , St ipu la ted Fact NO.3 .

AU Optr on ic s Co rpor at ion ("AUO") i s a Taiwanese corpora t ionwith a place of business located In Taiwan. Id . , St ipu la ted FactNO.5 . AU Optr on ic s Co rpo ra ti on of America ("AUO America") i s aCal i forn ia corpora t ion with a place of business located in SantaClara , Cal i fo rn ia . Id . a t Stipula ted Fact No . 6 . AUO Corp. andAUO America are col lec t ive ly re fe r red to as "AUO."I I . The Patents And The Technology General ly

The asser ted pa ten t s re la te to l i qu id c rys ta l disp lay("LCD") produc ts o r methods of producing and assembling suchproducts . Id . , St ipu la ted Fact No. 13. An LCD i s a f l a t paneldisp lay device t ha t i s used to generate images in a var ie ty ofproducts , including such devices as computer monitors , t e lev i s ionscreens, notebook computers and mobile phones. Id . , St ipu la tedFact No. 14.

DISCUSSIONI . Claim Construct ion

A. The Legal Princip les of Claim Construct ionClaim cons t ruct ion i s a quest ion of law. Markman v.

Westview Instruments , Inc . , 52 F.3d 967, 977-78 (Fed. Cir . 1995),a f f ' d , 517 U.S. 370, 388-90 (1996). When cons t ru ing the cla im s

3

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

6/77

of a pa ten t , a cou rt considers the l i t e r a l language of th e cla im,the pa ten t spec i f i ca t ion and the prosecu t ion h i s to ry . Markman,52 F.3d a t 979. Of these sources , the spec i f i ca t ion i s "alwayshighly re l evan t to the claim cons t ruc t ion ana lys i s . Usual ly iti s d i spos i t ive ; it i s th e s in gle b es t guide to th e meaning of adispu ted term." Phi l l ip s v. AWH Corporat ion , 415 F.3d 1303,1312-17 (Fed. Cir . 2005) ( c i t ing Vit ronics Corp. v. Concept ronic ,Inc . , 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir . 1996)) . However, "[e]venwhen the spec i f i ca t ion descr ibes only a s ingle embodiment, thecla ims of the pa ten t wi l l not be read r e s t r i c t i v e l y un le ss thepa ten tee has demonst ra ted a c l ea r in ten t ion to l imi t the cla imscope us ing 'words o r express ions of manifest exc lus ion o rr e s t r i c t i on . ' " Liebel -Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc . , 358 F.3d898, 906 (Fed. Cir . 2004) (quoting Telef lex , Inc . v. Ficosa N.Am. Corp. , 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir . 2002)) .

A cour t may consider ex t r i n s i c evidence, in clu din g e xp er tand inven to r tes t imony, d ic t ionar i es , and l ea rned t r e a t i s e s , inorder to a s s i s t it in unders tanding th e under lying technology,the meaning of te rms to one sk i l l ed in the a r t and how th einvent ion works. Ph i l l i p s , 415 F.3d a t 1318-19; Markman, 52 F.3da t 979-80. However, ex t r ins i c evidence i s cons idered l e ssr e l i ab l e and l e ss use fu l in cla im cons t ruc t ion than the pa ten tand i t s prosecu t ion h is to ry . Phi l l ip s , 415 F.3d a t 1318-19(d iscussing "flaws" inheren t in ex t r i n s i c evidence and not ing

4

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

7/77

th at e x tr in s ic evidence " is u nlik ely to r e s u l t in a r e l i ab l ei n t e rp re t a t i on of a pa ten t claim scope unless considered in th econtext of i n t r i n s i c evidence") .

In add i t ion to these fundamental cla im cons t ruc t ionpr inc ip les , a cour t should a lso i n t e rp r e t the language in a cla imby apply ing th e o rd in ary and accustomed meaning of the words inthe cla im. Enviro tech Corp. v. Al George, Inc . , 730 F.2d 753,759 (Fed. Cir . 1984). I f th e pa ten t inven to r c lea r ly suppl ies ad i f f e ren t meaning, h owever, then the claim should be i n t e rp re tedaccording to th e meaning suppl ied by th e inventor . Markman, 52F.3d a t 980 (noting t h a t paten tee i s f ree to be h is ownlexicographer , bu t emphasizing t ha t any spec ia l de f i n i t i on s givento words must be c le ar ly se t fo r th in paten t ) .cla ims should be cons t rued to uphold va l id i t y .740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir . 1984) .

B. AUO's Patents

I f poss ib le ,In re Yamamoto,

The pa r t i e s dispute a number of claim terms from th ea ss er te d p a te n ts . The Court has se lec ted f or c on str uc tio n thosete rms t h a t appear most p er t in en t to the disputes and t r i a lpos i t ions argued by the pa r t i e s in the pos t - t r i a l br ie f ing . 2

2 The Court notes tha t cla im cons t ruc t ion in t h i s casehas been a "moving t a rge t . " The pa r t i e s have a lte r ed d e fi ni tio n st ha t were advanced and have of fe red d i f f e ren t terms fo rcons t ruc t ion a t d i f f e ren t t imes during th is l i t ig a tio n . Inaddi t ion , the pos t - t r i a l br ie f ing between the pa r t i e s i sincons i s ten t as to which terms are genuinely in di spu te . Forexample, dispu ted terms are i d en t i f i ed in th e pos t - t r i a l br ie f ing

5

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

8/77

1. U.S. P a t e n t No. 6,778,160 ( the " '160 p a t e n t " )AUO a s s e r t s claims 1 and 3 of t h e '160 p a t e n t . Claim 3 i s a

dependent claim t h a t stems from claim 2. Accordingly , t h er e l e v a n t cla ims of t h e '160 p a t e n t a r e provided below, i n f u l l :

1. A l i q u i d c r y s t a l d i s p l a y , compris ing: an i n p u tl o g i c f o r i n p u t t i n g a video s i g n a l from a h o s t ; as t o r a g e f o r s t o r i n g t h e prev ious b r i g h t n e s s l e v e l o ft h e video s i g n a l i n p u t through s a i d i n p u t l o g i c ; ad e t e r m i n a t o r f o r determining an outpu t b r i g h t n e s s l e v e lbased on t h e p r e v i o u s b ri g h t n e s s l e v e l s t o r e d i n s a i ds t o r a g e and t h e next b r i g h t n e s s l e v e l o f t h e next videos i g n a l i n p u t t o s a i d i n p u t l o g i c so as t o make a t imei n t e g r a t i o n q u a n t i t y o f a b r i g h t n e s s changes u b s t a n t i a l l y equa l t o an i d e a l q u a n t i t y o f l i g h t i n as t a t i o n a r y s t a t e with r e s p ec t t o t h e nex t b r i g h t n e s sl e v e l ; and a d r i v e r f o r d r i v i n g an image d i s p l a y i n gl i q u i d c r y s t a l c e l l based on s a i d outpu t b r i g h t n e s sl e v e l determined by s a i d d e t e r m i n a t i o n l o g i c .2. The l i q u id c r y s t a l d i s p l a y according t o claim I ,wherein s a i d d e t e r m i n a t o r comprising a t a b l e f o rs t o r i n g a b r i g h t n e s s l e v e l determined by t h ec h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a l i q u i d c r y s t a l c e l l according t o ar e l a t i o n between t h e prev ious b r i g h t n e s s l e v e l and t h enext b r i g h t n e s s l e v e l , and determining t h e o u t p u tb r i g h t n e s s l e v e l by modifying s a i d next b r i g h t n e s sl e v e l based on t h e b ri g h t n e s s l e v e l r e a d from s a i dt a b l e .3. The l i q u i d c r y s t a l d i s p l a y according t o claim 2,wherein: s a i d video s i g n a l i n p u t through s a i d i n p u tl o g i c compr ises a p l u r a l i t y of c o l o r s i g n a l s ; and s a i dt a b l e i n s a i d d e t e r m i n a t o r i s provided f o r each o f s a i dc o l o r s i g n a l s .

i n claim c o n s t ru c ti o n s e c t io n s , and l a t e r , a d d i t i o n a l termsappear t o be added f o r c o n s t r uc ti o n i n t h e infr ingement s e c t i o n sof t h e b r i e f s . The p a r t i e s ' i n a b i l i t y t o agree on t h e c e n t r a lterms f o r d is p u te and s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i n ap a r a l l e l format has enhanced t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t h i s c a s e .

6

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

9/77

The pa r t i e s agree t ha t one of ord inary s k i l l In the a r t withrespec t to the '160 patent a t the t ime of i t s f i l i ng i s a personwith a t l e a s t a bache lo r ' s degree in e l e c t r i c a l engineer ing andsevera l years experience working with l iq u id c ry s ta l d isp lay s , o rth e e qu iv ale nt combined educat ion and work experience. D. l . 1388a t 389; D. l . 1383 a t 122.

a . a s torage for s tor ing the previousbrightness l e v e l

The pa r t i e s agree t ha t th e term "storage" r e f e r s to a"memory." D.l . 1388 a t 390; D. l . 1387 a t 23. The pa r t i e sd ispu te the meaning of " br ig htn es s l eve l . " LGD contends t ha t"br igh tness l eve l" means a "gray sca le value o r luminance value"and proposes t ha t the phrase "a s to rage fo r s to r ing th e prev iousb ri gh tn es s le ve l" be def ined as "memory t h a t t emporar i ly holdsthe br ightness l eve l of the video s igna l rece ived from th e hostthrough inpu t log ic fo r the prev ious t ime increment ." ld . a t394. ADO contends t h a t the term "br igh tness l eve l means "a l eve lof i n t ens i t y of l i gh t , " and t he re fo re , the term "a s to rage fo rs to r ing th e prev ious b rig h tn es s le v el " should be def ined as"memory fo r s to r ing a previous l eve l of l ig h t in te ns ity of avideo s igna l input through inpu t log ic . " D. l . 376 a t Exh. M-2.Afte r reviewing the claim language in l i gh t of the

spec i f i c a t i on , the Court concludes t h a t "br igh tness l eve l" meansa " leve l of i n t ens i t y of l i gh t . " This cons t ruc t ion i s cons i s ten twith the spec i f i ca t ion which exp la ins t h a t br igh tness "should be

7

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

10/77

cons idered in te rms of the quan t i ty of l i gh t . " AUO-5 ( '160paten t ) a t co l . 8, 11. 32-35. While it i s t rue t h a t th espec i f i c a t i on sugges t s t h a t a "br igh tness l eve l can berepresen ted as a t a r ge t br igh tness by a gray s ca l e , " th e Courtdoes not read th e spec i f i c a t i on to l im i t th e rep re sen ta t ion o f avideo s igna l ' s b r igh tness l eve l to "gray s ca le v alu es ." ld . a tco l . 3, 1 . 67.

b . deter.minator for deter.mining an outputbrightness l e v e l

AUO contends t h a t t h i s term means " log ic , such as ac i r c u i t r y , fo r determining an outpu t b r igh tness va lue . D. l . 376a t Exh. M-3. LGD contends t h a t t h i s phrase should be def ined as"c i r cu i t o r log ic t h a t determines th e ou tpu t br igh tness l eve l byapply ing an o f f s e t to th e next b r igh tness l e ve l t h a t i spredetermined based on a di f fe rence in quan t i ty of l i gh t betweenthe ac tua l and i dea l response cha rac t e r i s t i c s o f the l i qu idc ry s t a l ce l l . D. l . 1388 a t 395.

The pa r t i e s a re in agreement t h a t t h i s term r e f e r s to l og ico r c i r c u i t r y . Thei r disagreement a r i s e s from LGD's add i t iona ll im i t a t i on s which pu rpo r t to l im i t the manner in which th ede t e rmina to r determines th e outpu t br igh tness . The Court hasreviewed the cla im language in l i gh t of the spec i f i c a t i on , andconcludes t h a t such add i t iona l l im i t a t i on s are not requ i red .Accordingly , th e Court adopts AUO's proposed cons t ruc t ion o f thephrase "determinator fo r determining an outpu t br igh tness l eve l "

8

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

11/77

as " logic , such as a c i r cu i t r y , fo r determining an outputb ri gh tn es s v alu e."

c . so as to make a t ime in tegrat ion quanti ty ofa brightness change subs tant ia l ly equal to anidea l quanti ty of l i gh t in a s tat ionary s ta tewith respect to the next brightness l ev e l1 . substant ia l ly equal

AUO contends t ha t th e term "subs t an t i a l ly equal" should becons t rued in accordance with i t s pla in meaning such t h a t" subs t an t i a l ly equal" means "a l eve l t h a t i s not complete ly th esame but can be accepted as a subs t an t i a l ly equal l eve l . " LGDcontends t ha t the phrase "subs t an t i a l ly equal" i s i nde f i n i t e , o rin the a l t e rna t i ve , should be cons t rued as "a l eve l which i s notcomplete ly th e same bu t can be accepted as a subs t an t i a l l yequ iva len t l eve l , and inc ludes a l eve l which i s c l ose r to anidea l quan t i t y of l i gh t than [s ic] no prevent ive measures a retaken ." D .! . 1388 a t 101.

The Court concludes t ha t the term "subs t an t i a l ly equal" i snot i nde f i n i t e and should be def ined as AUO proposes . Thiscons t ruc t ion i s cons i s t en t with the pla in meaning of the term andthe spec i f i ca t ion , which expla ins t ha t the " rep resen ta t ion' s ubs t an t i a l l y equal l ev e l ' r e fe r s to a l eve l which i s notcomplete ly the same bu t can be accepted as a subs t an t i a l l yequ iva len t l eve l . " '160 pa ten t , co l. 4, 11. 56-58; co l . 9, 11.19-23 ( r e fe r r ing to Fig. 6 and the des i re to obta in a "quant i tyof l i gh t (S") which i s approximate ly the same as the

9

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

12/77

quan t i ty of l i gh t (8) [from an LC with] idea l responsecha rac t e r i s t i c [ s ] (8" .8 )" ; col . 8, 11. 45-47 (quant i ty of l i gh ti s "almost the same as" t ha t of an i dea l LC) . In the Cour t ' sview, LGD's cons t ruc t ion , improper ly imports l imi t a t ions from theprefe r red embodiment in to the cla ims.

2. t ime in tegrat ion quant ity o f abrightness change/ ideal quant ityof l i gh t in a s tat ionary s ta te

AUO contends t h a t the term "tim e i n t eg ra t ion quan t i ty of abr ightness change" means "a quan t i ty of l i gh t equal to th e ac tua lb rig htn es s le ve l output through a l i qu id c rys t a l , summed over ther i s e and f a l l response t ime of the l iqu id c rys t a l . " D.I . 376 a tM-13. According to AUO, the p la in meaning of " in te gra tio n, int h i s con tex t , i s summing a change va lue (here , br igh tness leve l )over a per iod of t ime (here, the response t ime of th e crys ta l ) "Id . AUO a lso contends t h a t th e term " id ea l q u an ti ty of l i gh t ina s ta tio na ry s ta te " r efe rs to the "quant i ty of l i gh t emi t t ed by apixe l during one t ime increment in which the pixe l i s in a non-changing s t a t e . " Id .

LGD contends t h a t these terms a re i nde f i n i t e . In th ea l t e rna t i v e , LGD appears to co nf la te the terms and o f f e r acombined de f i n i t i on as fo l lows: "quant i ty of l i gh t based on th eac tua l response cha rac t e r i s t i c of th e l iq u id c ry sta l ce l l whenthe l iq u id c ry sta l ce l l i s p ro vid ed w it h th e nex t br igh tnessl eve l during th e next tim e in crement and th e prev ious br ightness

10

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

13/77

l eve l before and a f t e r th e next t ime increment ." D.I . 376 a tExh. M-13.

Afte r reviewing th e claim language in l i gh t of thespec i f i c a t i on , th e Court concludes t ha t the terms are no ti ndef in i t e and wi l l adopt AUO's proposed cons t ruc t ion of theseterms. The spec i f i ca t ion explains t h a t the " [q ]uan t i ty of l i gh tcan be considered as a t ime in teg ra t ion quan t i ty of a br igh tnesschange." '160 pa ten t , co l . 4, 11. 53-57. The spec i f i ca t ionf u r the r exp la ins t h a t "br igh tness of a p ix e l to th e human eye. should be considered in te rms of th e quan t i ty of l i gh t , t ha t i sbr ightness change in teg ra ted with respec t to t ime." Id . co l . 8,11. 30-34. In th e Court ' s view, t h i s suppor t s AUO's pos i t iont ha t th e "t ime i n t eg ra t ion quant i ty of a br igh tness change" i sthe quan t i ty of l i gh t t ha t i s emit ted due to th e change inbr igh tness . LGD's proposed cons t ruc t ion adds l im i ta tio ns th ata re no t supported by th e spec i f i c a t i on .

Likewise, th e Court wi l l adopt AUO's proposed cons t ruc t ionof the term " idea l quan t i ty of l i gh t in a s t a t ionary s t a t e . " Thespec i f i ca t ion t eaches , by way of example, t h a t an id ea l q ua nt i tyof l i gh t i s t h a t quan t i ty of l i gh t outpu t by an i dea l LC over onet ime increment . Id . , co l . 4, 11. 42-47, Fig . 4. However, ani dea l LC does not ex i s t , id . a t co l . 8, 11. 63-65, and thespec i f i c a t i on ' s example teaches t h a t the id ea l q ua nt i ty of l i gh tfrom a convent ional LC i s t ha t quant i ty of l i gh t emit ted from th e

11

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

14/77

LC during one tim e in creme nt when t h e b r i g h t n e s s i s c o n s t a n t ,meaning t h e image i s s t a t i o n a r y . rd . c o l . 8, 11. 37-39 (when t h ep a r t i c u l a r p i x e l o r LC i s d r i v e n a t a t a r g e t b ri g h t n e s s f o r ane n t i r e t ime increment , t h e p i x e l o r LC may be d e s c r i b e d as beingi n a non-changing o r " s t a t i o n a r y s t a t e " ) . As with LGD's prev iousc o n s t r u c t i o n , i t s proposed c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " i d e a l q u a n t i t y o fl i g h t i n a s t a t i o n a r y s t a t e " adds l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t a r e notsupported by t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n .

2. U.S. P a t e n t No. 6,689,629 ( the " '629 p a t e n t " )AUO a s s e r t s claims 7 and 16 a g a i n s t LGD. Claim 7 i s a

dependent claim which depends upon claim 4. Claim 4, i n t u r ndepends upon claim 2, and claim 2, depends on claim 1.

S i m i l a r l y , Claim 16 i s a dependent claim which depends onclaim 13. Claim 13 i n t u r n depends on claim 11. Claim 11depends on claim 10, and claim 10 depends on independent claim 9.

Accordingly , t h e r e l e v a n t cla ims of t h e '629 p at e n t a r eprovided below i n f u l l :

1. An a r r a y s u b s t r a t e f o r d i s p l a y , compris ing:a l a y e r of an i n s u l a t in g s u b s tr a t e , having an a r e a ;a t h i n f i l m t r a n s i s t o r a r r a y formed on t h e i n s u l a t i n g s u b s t r a t e ;a p l u r a l i t y of w iring arranged on t h e i n s u l a t i n gs u b s t r a t e , each wiring having a f i r s t end, t h e w i r i n gi n communication with a t l e a s t one of t h e t r a n s i s t o r si n t h e t h i n f i l m a r r a y ;connect ions pads, each connect ion pad c o n t a c t i n g t h ef i r s t end of a t most one o f t h e p l u r a l i t y of w i r i n g s ;p i x e l e le c t r o d e s , and

12

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

15/77

dummy c o n d u c t i v e pa t t e rn s , the dummy pa t t e rn sc o m p r i s i n g a t l e a s t a b o u t 30% of the area of th ei n su la ti n g s u bs tr at e, th e dummy c o n d u c t i v e pa t t e rn ss i t u a t ed b e t w e e n th e c o n n e c t i o n p a d s a n d th e pixe le l ec t rodes s u c h t h a t th e dummy pa t t e rn s a re n o t incon tac t w i t h a n y of the wir ing .2 . The a r ray subs t ra te fo r d isp lay a c c o r d i n g to c l a i m1 w h e r e i n a t l e a s t o n e o f the w iring s c o m p r i s e s a tl e a s t a n u p p e r l ayer a n d a l o w e r l ayer of c o n d u c t i v emate r i a l s .4 . The array subs t ra te fo r d isp lay a c c o r d i n g to claim2 w h e r e i n the u p p e r l aye r wiring mater ia l i s se lec tedfro m th e g r o u p cons i s t ing of mol ybdenum, chromium,t a n t a l u m , t i t an ium a n d a llo y s th er eo f.7 . Th e array subs t ra te fo r display a c c o r d i n g to claim4 w h e r e i n the u p p e r l aye r wiring mate r i a l i s se lec teds u c h t h a t th e u p p e r l aye r wiring mater ia l d o e s n o tbecome insoluble in a n ac id o r a lka l ine e tchan t .

* * *

9 . A me th o d fo r f o r m i n g a n a r ray subs t ra te fo r di sp lay ,c o m p r i s i n g :f o r m i n g a l aye r o f a n i ns u la ti n g s u b st ra te , h a v i n g a n areaif o r m i n g a th in fi lm t r ans i s to r array fo rm e d o n th ei ns u la ti ng s u b st ra te , e a c h wir ing h a v i n g a f i r s t e n d ,th e wiring in c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h a t l e a s t on of thet r ans i s to r s in the th in fi lm arraYif o r m i n g c o n n e c t i o n s p a d s , e a c h c o n n e c t i o n p a dcon tac t ing the f i r s t e n d o f a t m o s t o n e o f th ep lu r a l i t y of wir ings if o r m i n g p ix el e le ctr od es , a n df o r m i n g dummy c o n d u c t i v e pa t t e rn s , the dummy c o n d u c t i v epa t t e rn s c o m p r i s i n g a t l e a s t a b o u t 30% o f th e area o fthe i n su la ti n g s u bs tr at e, the dummy pa t t e rn s s i tua tedb e t w e e n the c o n n e c t i o n p a d s a n d th e p ixe l e l ec t rodess u c h t h a t the dummy pa t t e r s a re n o t in con tac t with a n yof the wir ing .

13

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

16/77

10. The method fo r forming an array subs t ra te fo rdisplay according to claim 9 wherein a t l e a s t one ofthe wir ings compr ises a t l e a s t an upper l ayer and alower l ayer of conduct ive mate r i a l s .11. The method fo r forming an a r ray subs t ra te fo rdisplay according to claim 10 wherein the lower l ayerwir ing mate r i a l s i s se l ec t ed from the group cons i s t ingof aluminum and aluminum a l loys .13. The method fo r forming an ar ray subs t ra te fo rdisplay according to claim 11 wherein the upper l ayerwir ing mater ia l i s se l ec t ed from the group cons i s t ingof molybdenum, chromium, tanta lum, t i t an ium and a l l ay st he reof .16. The method fo r forming an array subs t ra te fo rdisplay according to claim 13 wherein th e upper l ayerwir ing mate r i a l i s se lec ted such t h a t the upper l aye rwir ing mate r i a l does not become insoluble in an ac id o ra lka l ine e tchan t .The pa r t i e s agree t h a t one of ordinary s k i l l in th e a r t with

re spec t to th e '629 pa ten t would be a person with a t l e a s t aBachelo r ' s degree in chemical o r e l e c t r i c a l eng ineer ing ,chemist ry , o r phys ics with 2 o r more y ea rs e xp erie nc e workingwith l iqu id c ry s t a l display f ab r ica t ion process ing , o r th eequ iva len t combined educat ion and work exper ience . D. l . 1383 a t

299; D. l . 1388 a t 132; Tr. 118:3-16 (S i l zars)a. dummy conduct ive patterns

LGD contends t h a t the term "dummy conduct ive pa t t e rns" means"port ions of the l ayer t h a t do not receive o r convey vo l t ages o rs igna l s . " D. l . 1388 a t 133. Refining t h i s cons t ruc t ionfur the r , LGD contends t h a t th i s c on st ru c ti o n r e qu i re s t h a t thedummy pa t te rns do not conduct o r convey s igna l s "a t l e a s t during

14

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

17/77

t e s t ing o r opera t ion of the di sp lay . " D.I . 1387 a t 6. In t h i sregard, LGD f u r the r contends t ha t dummy pa t t e rn s a re s t ruc tu restha t are put in to th e design of a product to a id in th emanufac tur ing of the product , but do not have a func t ion duringthe opera t ion of the display . D.I . 1388 a t 136-138. LGDcontends t ha t AUO has changed i t s pos i t ion on th e cons t ruc t ion oft h i s term, and t ha t t h i s change in p os i t io n demonstra tes t ha tAUO's cur ren t ly proposed def in i t ion should not be accepted.

AUO contends t h a t the term "dummy conduct ive pa t te rns"re fe rs to "one o r more metal pa t te rns in th e spec i f i ed regiont ha t are not in con tac t with any of the wir ing ." D.I . 1384 a t24. AUO acknowledges t h a t t h i s cons t ruc t ion i s d i f f e ren t thani t s prev ious ly proposed cons t ruc t ion which was "a metal pa t t e rntha t does not conduct s igna l s o r cu rren t used in the opera t ion ofthe di sp lay . " ld . a t 25. However, AUO contends t ha t i t sprevious cons t ruc t ion was too r e s t r i c t i v e . In t h i s regard , AUOcontends t h a t th e wir ing rec i t ed in the c la im s con ne cts th econnect ion pads to the t r ans i s to r s in the TFT a r ray . AUOcontends t h a t dummy pa t t e rn s a re not needed fo r the opera t ion ofthe t r ans i s to r s of the TFT array , and the re fo re , they "are not incon tac t with any of the wir ing" t h a t i s " in communicat ion with a tl e a s t one of th e t r ans i s to r s in the TFT ar ray ." l d . , c i t i ng '629pa ten t , co l . 8, 11. 14-19. However, AUO main ta ins t h a t t he re i snothing in the i n t r i n s i c evidence t ha t p re clu de s th e dummy

15

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

18/77

conduct ive p a t t e r n s from performing some f u n c t i o n , such asconduct ing a v o l t a g e o r s i g n a l used i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of ad i s p l a y , so long as t h e y a r e not i n c o n t a c t with t h e TFT w i r i n g .AUO p o i n t s ou t t h a t even under i t s p r i o r c o n s t r u c t i o n , nothingr e q u i r e d dummy conduct ive p a t t e r n s t o be unable t o r e c e i v e anyv o l t a g e s o r s i g n a l s , and t h a t t h e dummy conduct ive p a t t e r n s couldstill be connected t o a ground o r v o l t a g e supply . D . I . 1384 a t24-26.

As t h e Federa l C i r c u i t has recognized , t h e C o u r t ' s t a s k i nclaim c o n s t r u c t i o n i s not t o decide which of t h e a d v e r s a r i e s i sc o r r e c t , but t o independent ly determine t h e meaning of d i s p u t e dc l a i m s . Exxon Chern. P a t e n t s , Inc . v . Lubrizol Corp . , 64 F.3d1553, 1556 (Fed. C i r . 1995). For t h i s reason, t h e Cour t does nott a k e AUO's change i n i t s claim c o n s t r u c t i o n p o s i t i o n t o bei n d i c a t i v e o f t h e m e r i t s of i t s c u r r e n t argument.

Reviewing t h e d is p u te d term i n l i g h t o f t h e claim languageand s p e c i f i c a t i o n , t h e Court concludes t h a t t h e term "dummyconduct ive p a t t e r n s " i s p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u e d t o mean "conduct ivep a t t e r n s i n t h e s p e c i f i e d r e g i o n t h a t a r e no t I n c o n t a c t with anyof t h e w i r i n g . " The claim terms e x p r e s s l y s t a t e t h a t t h e dummyconduct ive p a t t e r n s must comprise " a t l e a s t about 30% o f t h earea" and " a r e not i n c o n t a c t with any o f t h e w i r i n g . " '629p a t e n t , c o l . 8, 11. 13-19, 57-63. The Cour t does not r e a d t h ecla ims o r t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n from p re cl u d i n g t h e dummy conduct ive

16

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

19/77

pa t te rns from performing some funct ion , so long as t h a t they arenot in con t ac t with th e TFT wir ing . Accord ingly , th e Courtconcludes t h a t LGD's claim cons t ruc t i on and AUO's p r i o r cla imcons t ruc t i on were both too r e s t r i c t i v e , and t h a t "dummy conducivepa t t e rns" a re "conduct ive p atte rn s in the spec i f i ed region t h a ta re not in con tac t wi th any of the wir ing ."

b. areaLGD contends t h a t th e term "area" i s i ndef in i t e because one

o f ord inary s k i l l in th e a r t would be unable to unambiguouslydiscern the boundar ie s of the asse r t ed c la ims . D.I . 1388 a t168-170. In t h i s regard , LGD contends t h a t t he re i s nodi sc losure on how th e 30% of the area should be ca lcu la t ed .A l t e rna t ive ly , LGD contends t h a t th e term "area" r e f e r s to"mater ia l depos i ted and pa t t e rned on a subs t ra te , such as g las s ,t h a t covers pa r t of the a r r ay subs t r a t e su r face . " Id . a t 171.

In re sponse , AUO contends t h a t "area" sh ou ld be cons t ruedaccording to i t s ord inary meaning as a "spec i f i ed reg ion ." D. I .1384 a t 23-24. Turning to the con tex t of the cla ims morespec i f i c a l l y , AUO contends t h a t "area" r e f e r s to a reg ion of thea r ray subs t ra te , spec i f i c a l l y a reg ion con ta in ing the dummy

conduct ive pa t t e rn s .Af te r reviewing th e claim language in l i gh t of the

spec i f i c a t i on , the Court concludes t h a t th e term "area" i s noti ndef in i t e and should be cons t rued according to i t s p la in meaning

17

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

20/77

as a "speci f ied region ." In the Cour t ' s view, t h i s i s cons i s ten twith th e spec i f i ca t ion which expla ins t ha t th e subs t ra te coverage"of the dummy conduct ive pa t t e rn s themselves [is] 30% o r more onan area of a spec i f i ed su r face . " '629 p aten t, co l . 5, 11. 55-61.Simi la r ly , the spec i f i ca t ion expla ins t ha t "dummy conduct ivepa t te rns a re formed on an area of a spec i f i ed region where thedummy conduct ive pa t t e rn s are formed." Id . , co l . 6, 11. 1-6 .Thus, the Court concludes t ha t an "area" i s "a spec i f i ed region ,"more spec i f i c a l l y , the region where dummy conduct ive pa t t e rns a reloca ted .

c . a plura l i ty o f wiring / each wiringLGD contends t ha t the term "each wiring" i s i nde f i n i t e ,

because it i s unc lear as to which wiring the term "each wiring"i s re fe r r ing from the p lu ra l i t y of wir ing. LGD contends t h a t" [ t ]o the extent th e term ' each wi r i ng ' can be const rued, theterm 'a p lu ra l i t y of wir ing arranged on the in su la t ing subs t r a t e 'should be const rued to mean ' po r t ions of th e l ayer t h a t conveyvol tages o r s igna l s from th e c on ne ctio n pads to th e t h in - f i lmt r ans i s to r s in the p ixe l ar ray ." D.I . 1407 a t 56.

AVO contends t h a t th e these te rms should be const rued in

accordance with t h e i r p la in meaning in th e co ntex t of the cla imelement in which they are used. Thus, AVO contends t h a t "ap lu r a l i t y of wiring arranged on the i n su l at in g s u bs tr at e, eachwir ing having a f i r s t end, the wir ing in communication with a t

18

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

21/77

l e a s t one of the t r ans i s to r s in the th in fi lm array" means "eachind iv idua l wir ing in a p lu r a l i t y of wir ings , " with the p lu r a l i t y

of wir ings being a p lu r a l i t y of e l e c t r i c a l conductors . D.I . 1383a t 347. In t h i s regard , AUO poin t s out t h a t the spec i f i ca t ionexp la ins " t h i s connect ion of 'each wir ing ' [by] descr ib ing'wi r ings such as scan l i n e s and s igna l l i n e s connected with ' thee lec t rodes o f the t r ans i s to r s . " D.I . 1383 a t 344 ( c i t ing '629pa ten t , co l. 1, 11. 17-19, co l . 4, 11. 49-51, Fig. 2 ) .

The Court concludes t h a t the te rms "each wir ing" and"p lu ra l i t y of w iring" as r ec i te d in the cla im element "ap lu r a l i t y o f wiring arranged on the i ns u la ti n g s u b st ra t e, eachwiring having a f i r s t end, the w iring in communication with a tl e a s t one of the t r ans i s to r s in the th in fi lm array" a re noti nde f i n i t e . The Court fu r ther concludes t h a t these te rms shouldbe cons t rued according to t h e i r p la in meaning in th e con tex t o fthe pa ten t , such t h a t a p lu r a l i t y o f wiring i s a p lu ra l i t y ofe l e c t r i c a l conductors and "each wir ing" i s "each indiv idua lwiring in a p lu r a l i t y o f wiring." '629 p aten t, co l. 8, 1. 6, 11,co l . 8, 11. 54-55; Tr. 139:10-140:1 (S i lza r s ) .

d . the upper layer wiring mater ia l does notbecome in so lu ble in an acid or alkal ineetchant

Although not i den t i f i ed in the pa r t i e s ' claim cons t ruc t ionchar t s , it i s apparen t from t h e i r br ie f ing t h a t dispu tes ex i s tregard ing the proper cons t ruc t ion and /or app l i ca t ion of t h i s

19

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

22/77

phrase. Spec i f i ca l ly , AUO contends tha t the so lub i l i t y i s sue inclaim 7 and 16 must be evaluated in the con tex t of a two l aye rs t ruc tu re - t h a t i s a wiring s t ruc tu re having a lower and upperl ayer of wir ing . D.I . 1384 a t 26-27.

LGD contends t h a t AUO's i n t e rp re ta t ion of t h i s cla imimproper ly impo rt s in to th e c la ims l imi t a t ions con ta ined in thespec i f i c a t i on . In pa r t i cu l a r , LGD contends t h a t cla im 7 and 16do not r e f e r to the pass iv i ty problem descr ibed in thespec i f i ca t ion and con ta in no l imi t a t ion tha t the i n so lub i l i t y ofthe upper l ayer i s during the e tch ing process . D .I . 1406 a t 1718.

Afte r reviewing th e claim language In l i gh t of thespec i f i c a t i on , the Court concludes t h a t the l imi t a t ion of cla im 7and 16 must be read in the contex t of a two l ayer s t ruc tu re .Fuj i Photo F ilm Co., Ltd. v. In te rna t iona l Trade Com'n, 386 F.3d1095 (Fed. Cir . 2004) ("Claims must be read in the contex t o f thespec i f i ca t ion of which they a re a par t . " ) This read ing i scons i s t en t w ith cla im s 7 and 16 which are dependent upon cla ims 2and 10. Claims 2 and 10 express ly contempla te two l ayer wiring,and t he re fo re , the cla im language makes it ev iden t , t h a t it i sw ith in the con tex t of two- layer wiring t h a t so lub i l i t y must beeva lua ted . In the Cour t ' s view, t h i s i s a ls o c on sis te nt with thepurpose of th e in ve ntio n which i s to prevent th e upper l ayer frombecoming insoluble during etching of the two-layer wir ing . Tr.

20

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

23/77

870:18-871 :8 ,872 :9 -13 ,873 :7 -23 (Rubloff) ; Tr. 1388:20-1391:2(S i l zars) . In t h i s regard, th e Court agrees with th e tes t imonyof Dr. S ilz ars th at whether mater ia l would become i n so lub le i fdropped by i t s e l f in a va t of e t chan t i s i r r e l evan t to thecon tex t of the claimed inven t ion . Tr. 1388:20-24 (S i lza rs )Accordingly , the Cour t does not view i t s cons t ruc t ion asimport ing l imi t a t ions from the spec i f i ca t ion as LGD co ntends, b utas an a t tempt to view th e claim in i t s p ro pe r c on te xt .

3. U.S. Paten t No. 7,125,157 (the " '157 paten t")AUO a s se r t s independent cla im 1 of the '157 pa ten t . In

f u l l , claim 1 prov ides :1. A backl ight un i t fo r a l i qu id c ry s t a l display ,compris ing: a frame; a f i r s t support ing por t ion ,disposed on the frame; a second support ing por t ion ,fu r ther disposed on the frame; and a fi lm comprising af i r s t c on st ra in ing po r ti o n and a second cons t ra in ingp or tio n, p os it io ne d on the frame by the f i r s tsuppor t ing por t ion and the second support ing por t ionpassing through the f i r s t cons t ra in ing por t ion and thesecond c on stra in in g p or tio n, r es pe ct iv ely ; when th eframe i s disposed in a f i r s t pos i t ion , th e f i r s tsupport ing por t ion par t i a l l y contac ts an inner wal l ofthe f i r s t c on st ra in i ng po r ti o n fo r pos i t ion ing thef i lm, and the second suppor t ing por t ion does notcontac t th e second c on st ra in ing po r ti o n; and when theframe i s disposed in a second pos i t ion , th e secondsupport ing por t ion par t i a l l y contac ts an i nne r wal l o fthe second c on stra in in g p or t io n fo r p os it io nin g th efi lm and the f i r s t suppor t ing por t ion does no t contac tthe f i r s t cons t ra in ing por t ion .The pa r t i e s agree t ha t one of ord inary s k i l l in th e a r t with

respec t to the '157 pa ten t a t the t ime of i t s f i l i ng "would be ap erso n w ith a bachelors degree in mechanical eng ineer ing o r

21

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

24/77

phys ics and seve ra l yea r s of exper ience working wi th aspec t s ofthe back l igh t modules fo r l iq uid c ry sta l d isp lay s o r th eequ iva len t combined educat ion and work exper ience . " D.l . 1383 a t

497 i D. l . 1388 a t 678 i T r. 2 07 :2 4-2 08 :1 2 (S i lza r s ) .a . supporting port ion

LGD contends t h a t a "support ing por t ion" should be cons t ruedas a pro jec t ion from th e frame. D.l . 376 a t Exh. Q-1. AUOcontends t h a t th e "support ing por t ion" should not be l im ited to apro jec t ion , which may be def ined to have a spec i f i ed shape . ld .

The Cour t adopts AUO's cons t ruc t i on o f "su pp ort in g por t ion"as "any s t r uc tu r e pro t rud ing from th e frame, ( in clu din g b ut no tl im ited to a cy lin de r o r a cuboid) in tended to suppor t th eop t i ca l f i lm." '157 pa ten t , co l . 2, 11. 61-62, co l . 3, 11. 4-12,col . 4, 11. 17-24, Fig . 2A and 2Bi co l . 6, 11. 4-8, 31-42 Fig . 3Aand 3Bi Fig. 3C, co l . 7, 11. 39-45, Fig. 4A-4D.

b . constraining port ionAUO contends t h a t a const ra in ing por t ion i s "any format ion

on o r in th e op t i ca l fi lm ( in clu din g b ut not l im ited to a hole o rgroove) in tended to r e s t r i c t the movement range o f the f i lm."D. l . 376 a t Exh. Q-2. LGD contends t h a t t h i s term should bedef ined as "a passage through th e fi lm t h a t has a gap in th egrav i ty ac t ing d i r ec t i on a f t e r rece iv ing a suppor t ing por t ion . "ld .

22

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

25/77

In t h e C o u r t ' s view, LGD's c o n s t r u c t i o n improperly l i m i t st h e c o n st ra in i n g p o r t i o n " t o a p as sa ge th ro ugh t h e film" and "agap." This i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n which e x p r e s s l ycontemplates t h a t a c o n st ra i n i n g p o r ti o n may be a "groove" whichdoes not equate with a "gap."63-65, c o l . 4, 11. 7-16.

'157 p a t e n t , c o l . 2, 11. 27-30,

c . f i r s t pos i t ion / second pos i t ionWith r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t and second o r i e n t a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d

i n t h e s e te rms, LGD argues t h a t t h e f i r s t s u p p o r t i n g p o r t i o n o rp o s i t i o n must be l o c a t e d n e a r an upper edge of t h e frame. LGDand AUO g e n e r a l l y agree t h a t t h e second p o s i t i o n i s determined byr e f e r e n c e t o t h e f i r s t p o s i t i o n , b u t t o t h e e x t e n t LGD'sc o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e second p o s i t i o n depends from i t s upper framerequirement of t h e f i r s t p o s i t i o n , AUO contends t h a t LGD'sc o n s t r u c t i o n i s i n c o r r e c t . According t o AUO, t h e r e i s no upperedge l o c a t i o n requirement and t h e f i r s t p o s i t i o n i s s imply ani n i t i a l p o s i t i o n . D . I . 1383 a t ~ 513-516.

The Court a g r e e s with AUO and concludes t h a t no such upperedge l i m i t a t i o n e x i s t s i n t h e cla im . In t h e C o u r t ' s view,adopt ing LGD's proposal i n t h i s r e g a r d would improperly l i m i t t h ecla ims t o t h e p r e f e r r e d embodiments. L i e b e l - F l a r s h e i m Co. v.Medrad, I n c . , 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. C i r . 2004). A ccording ly ,t h e Court concludes t h a t a f i r s t p o s i t i o n means "an i n i t i a lp o s i t i o n o f a l i q u i d c r y s t a l d i s p l a y u n i t " and a "second

23

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

26/77

pos i t ion" means " the pos i t ion determined by re fe rence to th eangle o f ro ta t ion between th e f i r s t and second pos i t i on . "

d. does not contac tLGD contends t h a t the phrase "does not con tac t " means "does

not touch;" however, LGD fu r ther exp la ins t h a t t h i s "requi rest h a t a suppor t ing por t ion does not touch a c on s tr ai ni ng po rt io nwhen in a non-support ing pos i t ion , including when th e f ilmexpands o r con t rac t s due to temperature va r i a t i on . " D.I . 1388 a t

681. AUO contends t h a t t h i s phrase should be cons t ruedaccording to i t s p la in meaning an d shou ld no t inc lude any thermalexpansion and con t rac t ion l im i t a t i on s . In t h i s regard , AUOpoin t s out t h a t such l im i t a t i on s a re included in dependent cla im9, and t he re fo re , the doct r ine o f claim d i f f e r en t i a t i on shouldprec lude claim 1 from being construed to inc lude these add i t i ona ll imi t a t ions . D.I . 1384 a t 40-41; D.I . 1440 a t 17.

Claim d i f f e r en t i a t i on " re fe r s to th e presumpt ion t h a t anindependent cla im shou ld not be cons t rued as requ i r ing al imi t a t ion added by a dependent c la im ." C urtis s-W righ t Cont ro lCorp. v . Velan, Inc . , 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir . 2006) .However, cla im c o ns tr uc ti on po s it io n s based on cla imd i f f e r en t i a t i on are rebu t t ab le , taking a secondary ro le i f ana l t e rna te cons t ruc t ion i s d ic ta ted by the wr it te n d e sc ri pt io n o rprosecu t ion h is to ry . See Regents o f the Univ. of Cal . v .Dakocytomation Cal . , Inc . , 517 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Ci r . 2008) .

24

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

27/77

A f t e r reviewing t h e cla im language, s p e c i f i c a t i o n andp r o s e c u t i o n h i s t o r y , t h e Court concludes t h a t t h e term "does notc o n t a c t " should be construed as AUO p ro po se s, a cc or di ng t o i t sp l a i n meaning without t h e a d d i t i o n a l temperature and thermalc o n t r a c t i o n and expansion l i m i t a t i o n s from cla im 9 t h a t informLGD's proposed cla im c o n s t r u c t i o n . Claim 9 depends on cla im 1and adds t h e l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t "when t h e frame i s disposed i n t h esecond p o s i t i o n , a f i r s t gap i s formed between t h e f i r s ts u p p o r t i n g p o r t i o n and t h e f i r s t c o n s tr a i n i n g p o r ti o n , and thef i r s t gap i s an al lowance f o r f i l m expansion o r c o n t r a c t i o n duet o temperature v a r i a t i o n ; when t h e frame i s disposed i n t h e f i r s tp o s i t i o n , a second gap i s formed between t h e second s u p p o r t i n gp o r t i o n and t h e second c o n s t r a i n i n g p o r t i o n , and t h e second gapi s an al lowance f o r f i l m expansion o r c o n t r a c ti o n due t otemperature v a r i a t i o n . " '157 p a t e n t , c o l . 9, 11. 16-20. Duringp r o s e c u t i o n o f the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e '157 p a t e n t , t h e Examinerd i d not r e q u i r e t h e a p p l i c a n t t o combine t h e elements o f cla ims 1and 9 i n t o a s i n g l e cla im, and i n s t e a d determined t h a t claim 1was s e p a r a te l y p a t e n ta b l e without any of t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f cla im9. AUO-10 a t AUO-LGD 00 013 33 , 00 01 45 2, 0001487-88; Tr. 1202:211203:6 ( S m i t h - G i l l e s p i e ) . LGD p o i n t s out t h a t t h e embodiments ofthe '157 p a t e n t r e f e r t o thermal c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , howeverl i m i t a t i o n s from the s p e c i f i c a t i o n should not be read i n t ocla ims. Claim 1 has no l im i t a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t he rm a l e xpan sion

25

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

28/77

o r c o n t r a c t i o n , and t h e Court i s persuaded t h a t , c o n s i s t e n t witht h e d o c t r i n e of c la im d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , cla im 1 should no t be r e a di n a manner so as t o i n c o rp o r a te t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of claim 9.

4. U.S. P a t e n t No. 7,090,506 (the " '506 p a t e n t " )AUO a s s e r t s cla im 7 and 17 of t h e '506 p a t e n t .

dependent cla im t h a t depends on independent cla im 1 .Claim 7 i s a

Claim 17 i sa l s o an independent c la im. Accordingly, t h e r e l e v a n t cla im s oft h e '506 p a t e n t p r o v i d e , i n f u l l :

1. A s i g n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n d e v i c e , connect ing a d i s p l a ymodule and a system, comprising: a f i r s t f l e x i b l ep r i n t e d c i r c u i t board, e l e c t r i c a l l y connect ing t h ed i s p l a y module and t h e system and a second f l e x i b l ep r i n t e d c i r c u i t board, e l e c t r i c a l l y connect ing t h ed i s p l a y module and t h e f i r s t f l e x i b l e p r i n t e d c i r c u i tboard , wherein t h e f i r s t and second f l e x i b l e p r i n t e dc i r c u i t boards a r e j o i n e d by hot b a r s o l d e r i n g .7. The s i g n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n dev ice as claimed i n c l a i m1, wherein t h e second f le x ib l e p r i n t e d c i r c u i t boardt r a n s m i t s a l i g h t source s i g n a l .17. A s i g n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n d ev ic e, c on ne ctin g an d i s p l a ymodule and a system, comprising: a f i r s t f l e x i b l ep r i n t e d c i r c u i t board, e l e c t r i c a l l y connect ing t h ed i s p l a y module and t h e system; and a second f l e x i b l ep r i n t e d c i r c u i t board, e l e c t r i c a l l y connect ing t h ed i s p l a y module and t h e f i r s t f l e x i b l e p r i n t e d c i r c u i tboard, wherein t h e f i r s t f le x i b l e p r i n t e d c i r c u i t boardhas a f i r s t al ignment mark, and t h e second f l e x i b l ep r i n t e d c i r c u i t board has a second a l ignment marko ve rla pp ed w it h and a l i g n e d t o t h e f i r s t a l ignmentmark.The p a r t i e s agree t h a t a person o f o r d i n a r y s k i l l i n t h e a r t

o f t h e '506 p a t e n t i s a p ers on w ith a b a c h e l o r s degree i nmechanical e n g i n e e r i n g o r p h y s i c s and s e v e r a l y ea r s of e x p e r i e n c eworking with a s p e c t s of l i q u i d c r y s t a l d i s p l a y , o r t h e e q u i v a l e n t

26

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

29/77

combined educat ion and work exper ience . D.I . 1383 a t 571; Tr.227:12-20 (S i lza rs )

a . the f i r s t and second f l ex ib l e printed c i r cu i tboards are jo ined by hot bar soldering

LGD contends t ha t t h i s term descr ibes a process by which th ec i r cu i t boards are jo ined , and i s thus , a process l imi t a t ion .LGD contends t h a t the term " the f i r s t and second f l ex ib le pr in tedc i r cu i t boards are jo ined by hot b ar s old er in g" means

both f l ex ib le pr in ted c i r cu i t boards are connected toeach othe r by a solder ing process where the c i r cu i tboards are heated with a ba r to melt th e so lde r a tmult ip le po in t s simultaneously a long each c i r cu i t boardwhi le pressure i s app l ied to the connec t ion .

D.I . 1388 a t 541.In re sp on se, ADO contends t ha t t h i s term i s not a process

l imi t a t ion , bu t a s t ruc tu ra l l imi ta t ion . In t h i s regard , ADOcontends t ha t claim 1 does not include any of the t yp i ca lproduct-by-process language and i s a pure p rod uct cla im definedso le ly by s t ruc tu ra l l imi ta t ions . Thus, ADO contends t h a t" jo ined by hot b ar s old er in g" means " jo ined by s ol de r ma t e ri al ."D.I . 1384 a t 45 . Alte rna t ive ly , ADO contends t h a t i f t h i s termi s cons t rued as a process l imi t a t ion , it should be const rued as

the f i r s t and second pr in ted c i rcu i t s made on f l ex ib lefi lm are jo ined by a so lder ing process where th e so lde rand f lux are a pp lie d to th e co ntac t a rea and thec on tac t a re a i s heated with a bar to melt the so lder .

D.I . 376 a t Exh. 0-4 . ADO contends t ha t LGD's cons t ruc t ion i sover ly narrow, because hot bar solder ing does not requ i re

27

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

30/77

"pressure" beyond tha t which i s necessary to hold the two i temsbeing so ldered t oge the r and does not r equ i re mel t ing so lde r a t"mult ip le" con tac t po in t s .

"Cour ts must genera l ly take care to avoid reading processl imi t a t ions in to an apparatus claim " Baldwin GraphicSystems, Inc . v . S ie ber t , In c. , 512 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir .2008) . "Even where te rms a re amenable to i n t e rp r e t a t i on as ap roced ure o f m anufacture, ap paren t ' p rocess ' te rms should bein te rp re ted as s t ruc t u r a l l imi t a t ions when used in an ad jec t ivenon-process sense and de f ine a phys ica l cha r ac t e r i s t i c of th eappa ra tus . " R2 Medical Sys . , Inc . v . Katecho, Inc . , 931 F. Supp.1392, 1425 n .5 (N.D. Ill. 1996) ( c i t ing 2 Donald S. Chisum,Patents 8.05[5] , a t 8-96 (1994)); B iacore v . Thermo Bioana lys isCorp. , 79 F. Supp. 2d 422 ,456 (D. Del. 1999) ("The mere use in acla im of s t r uc tu r a l o r charac te r i z ing te rms der ived fromprocesses o r methods, however, does not preven t a cla im frombeing cons idered a t rue product cla im.")

Consider ing the cla im language in l i gh t of the spec i f i ca t ionand prosecu t ion h is to ry , the Court concludes t ha t th e l im i t a t i on" jo ined by ho t b ar s old erin g" does not amount to a processl imi t a t ion , bu t in s tead d esc rib es th e s t r uc tu r a l re l a t ionsh ipbetween th e f i r s t and second f l ex ib l e pr in ted c i r cu i t boards .Claim 1 of the '506 pa ten t was d i s t i ngu i shed over th e p r i o r a r tbased on the l imi t a t ion requi r ing t ha t s old er m a te ria l jo in the

28

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

31/77

tw o f l ex ib le p r i n t ed c i r c u i t boards r a the r than a fo ldab le f l a tcab le . AUO-12 a t AUO-LGD 1948. Thus, th e C ourt view s th e

so lder ing descr ibed in t h i s cla im as a s t ruc tu ra l l im i t a t i on .Accord ing ly , th e Court c on stru es th e phrase " f i r s t and secondp r i n t ed c i r c u i t boards a re jo ined by hot ba r so lder ing" to meant h a t th e " f i r s t and second pr in t ed c i r c u i t boards a re jo ined byso lde r mate r i a l . "3

b . al ignment markDuring th e cla im cons t ruc t i on proceed ings in t h i s case ,

ne i the r pa r ty proposed a c on st r uc tio n f or the term "a lig nm en tmark." However, it appears t h a t pos t - t r i a l th e pa r t i e s a re nowdispu t ing th e meaning of t h i s te rm. Accord ing to LGD, a persono f o rd ina ry s k i l l in the a r t would unders t and an "a l ignment mark"to "be a d i s t i n c t i v e i den t i fy ing f ea tu re t h a t i s prov ided so l e l yf or p o si t io n in g of th e f l ex ib le p r i n t ed c i r c u i t boards dur ingassembly." D.I . 1388 a t 544.

In re sponse , AUO contends t h a t a l ignment marks can have morethan one purpose . For example, t hey can func t ion fo r both

Even i f th e Court conc ludes t h a t t h i s phrase i s aprocess l im i t a t i on , th e Court concludes LGD's proposedcons t ruc t i on i s too narrow. In reach in g t h i s c on clu sio n, th eCourt c red i t s the tes t imony of Dr. S i l za r s re ga rd in g th e hot barso lder ing p roces s . Spec i f i ca l ly , Dr. S i l za r s exp la ined t h a t hotbar so lder ing requ i re s applying a hot ba r to a so lde r j o i n t .However, t h i s does no t requ i re t h a t mul t ip le j o i n t s be so lde reds imul taneous ly , and th e Court f inds no suppo r t fo r t h i sadd i t i ona l l im i t a t i on in the pa t en t spec i f i c a t i on o r p rosecu t ionh i s t o ry . T r. 3 20 :1 9-3 22 :1 1, 336:11-18 (S i lza r s ) .

29

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

32/77

pos i t ion ing and bonding. Thus, AUO contends t h a t LGD'sdef in i t ion of al ignment marks i s too r e s t r i c t i v e , and "a l ignmentmarks" should be more broadly defined as pa t t e rns used fo raccura te pos i t ion ing and c on ne ctio n o f f l ex ib le p r in t ed c i r cu i tboards . D. l . 1383 a t ~ 657-663; D. l . 1384 a t 46, 50.

Reviewing t h i s cla im term in l i gh t of the spec i f i ca t ion ofthe '506 pa ten t , the Court concludes t h a t AUO's more expansivedef in i t ion i s co r r ec t . The '506 pa ten t d isc loses more than onetype of a l ignment mark. For example, pad e lec t rodes aredisc losed on th e f i r s t and second pr in ted boards in Figure 3a.These pad e lec t rodes serve as both a l ignment marks fo rpos i t i on ing and as con tac t pads fo r bonding o r e l e c t r i c a l l yj o in ing two f le x ib le p rin te d c i r cu i t boards . '506 pa ten t , co l .2, 11. 26-38. Accordingly , the Court concludes t ha t an a l ignmentmark i s a pa t t e rn used fo r accura te pos i t ion ing and c on ne ctio n o ff l ex ib le pr in ted c i r cu i t boards .I I . Direct Infringement

A. Appl icab le LawA patent i s i n f r inged when a person "wi thout au thor i ty

makes, uses o r se l l s any p ate nte d in ve ntio n, w ith in the United

Sta tes dur ing the term of the p a t e n t . ." 35 U.S.C. 271 (a )A pa ten t owner may prove infr ingement under e i t h e r of twotheor ies : l i t e r a l infr ingement o r th e doct r ine of equ iva len t s .Li t e ra l i nf rin gemen t o cc ur s where each element of a t l e a s t one

30

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

33/77

claim of the pa ten t i s found in th e a l leged i n f r i nge r ' s product .Pandui t Corp. v . Dennison Mfg. Co., 836 F.2d 1329, 1330 n. 1(Fed. Cir . 1987); Rober t L. Harmon, Paten t s and th e Federa lCircu i t 195 & n. 31 (3d ed. 1994) .

"The doct r ine o f equ iva len t s a l lows the paten tee to cla imthose i n subs t an t i a l a l t e r a t i on s t h a t were not cap tured ind ra f t ing the o r ig ina l pa ten t cla im but which could be c rea tedthrough t r i v i a l changes ." Festo Corp. v . Shoketsu Kinzoku KogyoKabush ik i Co., 535 U.S. 722, 733 (U.S. 2002) . "An element in theaccused device i s e qu iv ale nt to a claim l imi t a t ion i f the onlydi f fe rences between th e two are i n subs tan t i a l . " Honeywell I n t ' lv . Hamilton Sund st ra nd Co rp ., 370 F.3d 1131, 1139 (Fed. Cir .2004) . To prove infr ingement by the doct r ine of equ iva len t s , apaten tee must provide "par t i cu la r ized tes t imony and l i nk ingargument" as to th e " i n subs t an t i a l i t y of the di f fe rences" betweenthe claimed inven t ion and the accused product , o r with re spec t toth e func t ion /way/ resu l t t e s t . See Texas I nstr uments I nc . v.Cypr es s Semiconductor Corp. , 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir . 1996)" [E]vidence an d a rgumen t on th e doct r ine of equ iva len t s cannotmerely be subsumed in p l a i n t i f f ' s case of l i t e r a l infr ingement ."Lear Sieg le r , Inc . v . Sea ly Ma ttr es s Co., 873 F.2d 1422, 1425(Fed. Ci r . 1989) .

Infr ingement lS a two s tep inqu i ry . Step one requi res acou r t to cons t rue th e d is pu te d te rms of the pa ten t a t i s sue .

31

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

34/77

Construct ion of the claims i s a ques t ion of law sub jec t to denovo review. See Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs . , 138 F.3d 1448, 1454(Fed. Cir . 1998). Step two requi res the f a c t - f i nde r to comparethe accused products w ith the p ro p er ly c on str ue d cla ims of th epa ten t . This second s tep i s a quest ion of f a c t . See Bai v. L &L Wings, Inc . , 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir . 1998) . The par tya s s e r t i ng infr ingement under e i the r the theory of l i t e r a linfr ingement o r th e doct r ine of equ iva len t s has the burden ofproof and must meet i t s burden by a preponderance of theevidence. SmithKline Diagnost ics , Inc . v. Helena Lab. Corp. , 859F.2d 878, 889 (Fed. Cir . 1988) ( c i t a t ions omit ted) .

B. Whether LGD In f r inges cla ims 1 and 3 of AUO's '160Patent

After comparing LGD's accused produc ts w ith cla im s 1 and 3of th e '160 pa ten t , the Court concludes t h a t AUO has es tab l i shedby a preponderance of th e evidence t ha t LGD l i t e r a l l y in f r ingesth e '160 pa ten t . 4 In reaching t h i s conclusion, the Cour t c red i t sthe te stim on y o f Dr. Si l za r s .

4 LCD modules t h a t inc lu de th e New Monde chip a rer ep resen ta t ive of th e accused products . Tr. 169:6-170:18(S i lza r s ) ; AUO-1553. For purposes of inf r ingement , the Cour tf inds t ha t the re a re no r ele va nt d if fe re n ce s between the LGDproducts t h a t Dr. Si l za r s analyzed . T r. 1 69 :6 -1 69 :1 1 (S i lza rs )In add i t ion , the accused LGD products t ha t use overdr ive are thesame fo r p urpo se s o f in fr in gement, based on Dr. Si l z a r s 'examinat ion of the products and h is ana lys i s of th e spec i f i ca t ionand th e te stim on y o f LGD witnesses . Tr. 169:12-23.

32

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

35/77

Claim 1 Preamble: A l iq u id c ry sta l d i sp lay , compris ingLGD does not dispu te t ha t t h i s element of the cla ims i s

p resen t in th e accused dev ices , and the Cour t f inds t h a t LGD'saccused display modules are l iqu id c ry s t a l di sp lays . AUO-164 a t1/51; AUO-859.

Claim 1: an input log ic for input t ing a video s igna lfrom a host

Page 1 of the New Monde spec i f i ca t ion shows t ha t the NewMonde t iming con t ro l l e r chip includes LVDS inpu t l og ic fo ri npu t t ing a video s igna l from a hos t . AUO-165 a t 1/51; Tr.173:19-174:17 (S i l za rs ) . All o f th e t iming con t ro l l e rs in theaccused LGD modules rece ive an LVDS input through an input l og ic ,the LVDS i n t e r face . AUO-1533; AUO-135 a t 1/46; AUO-160 a t 1/36;AUO 161 a t 1/36; AUO 149 a t 1/50; AUO 150 a t 1/50; AUO-155 a t2/41; AUO 156 a t 2/41; AUO-157 a t 1/35; AUO-158 a t 1/35; AUO-159a t 2/41; AUO-137 a t 1/48; AUO-138 a t 1/48; AUO-145 a t 1/45; AUO-146 a t 1/45; AUO-143 a t 1/46; AUO-144 a t 1/46; AUO-133 a t 1/53;AUO-134 a t 1/53; AUO-167 a t 1/51; AUO-168 a t 1/51; AUO-151 a t1/51; AUO-152 a t 1/51; AUO-153 a t 2/35; AUO-154 a t 2/35; AUO-162a t 2/33; AUO-169 a t 1/51; AUO-170 a t 1/51; AUO-164 a t 1/51; AUO-165 a t 1/51; AUO-139 a t 1/45; AUO-140 a t 1/45; AUO-131 a t 1/44;AUO-132 a t 1/44; AUO-166 a t 2/39; AUO-141 a t 1/25; AUO-142 a t1/25; AUO-147 a t 1/47; AUO-148 a t 1/47.

33

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

36/77

Claim 1: storage for s tor ing the previous brightnessl e v e l of the v ideo s ignal input through said inputl og i c

The Court f inds t h a t the accused dev ices meet t h i s cla imelement . The frame memory i s the "s to rage fo r s to r ing . " Thesystem block diagram of New Monde includes a "frame memory"i d en t i f i ed as th e "Frame Memory SDRAM" in th e System BlockDiagram and as a Fie ld Store , in the Over Driving Scheme Diagram.T r. 1 77 :1 4-1 79 :7 (S i lza r s ) ; AUO-164/165 a t 1/51 and 4/51. Theframe memory s to res the previous l eve l of l ig h t in te ns ity of thevideo s igna l inpu t through the inpu t log ic . The frame memorytemporar i ly holds th e br ightness l eve l of the video s igna lreceived from the host through input log ic fo r the previous t imeincrement. T r. 1 78 :1 3-1 79 :7 (S i lza r s ) ; AUO-165 a t 1. Each ofthe t iming con t ro l l e r chips analyzed by Dr. Si lza rs i s used in a

system t h a t includes a s imi la r frame memory SDRAM, a lso ca l l edthe Fie ld Store in the Over Driving Scheme b lock diagram. AUO-1533; AUO-1553; AUO-135 a t 1/46 and 4/46; AUO-136 a t 1/46 and4/46; AUO-160 a t 1/36 and 3/36; AUO-161 a t 1/36 and 3/36; AUO-149a t 150 and 4/50; AUO-150 a t 1/50 and 4/50; AUO-155 a t 2/41; AUO-156-2/41; AUO-157 a t 3/35; AUO-158 a t 3/35; AUO-159 a t 2/41; AUO-137 a t 1/48 and 4/48; AUO-138 a t 1/48 and 4/48; AUO-145 a t 1/45and 4/45; AUO-146 a t 1/45 and 4/45; AUO-143 a t 1/46 and 4/46;AUO-144 a t 1/46 and 4/46; AUO-133 a t 3/53 and 4/53; AUO-134 a t3/53 and 4/53; AUO-167 a t 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-168 a t 1/51 and

34

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

37/77

4/51; AUO-151 a t 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-152 a t 4/51; AUO-153 a t 2/35;AUO-154 a t 2/35; AUO-162 a t 2/33; AUO-169 a t 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-170 a t 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-164 a t 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-165 a t 1/51and 4/51; AUO-139 a t 1/45 and 4/45; AUO-140 a t 1/45 and 4/45;AUO-131 a t 3/44 and 4/44; AUO-132 a t 3/44 and 4/44; AUO-166 a t2/39; AUO-141 a t 2/25 and 4/25; AUO-142 a t 2/25 and 4/25; AUO-147a t 1/47 and 4/47 and AUO-148 a t 1/47 and 4 /47 .

LGD contends t h a t the accused products do not meet t h i sclaim l imi t a t ion , because th e accused t iming con t ro l l e rs s to recompressed data t h a t rep re sen t s a comparison of br igh tness l eve l sto th e average graysca le l eve l of a block of l iq u id c ry s ta lce l l s . LGD contends t h a t the compressed data i s not ac tua lprev ious br igh tness l eve l s , nor can it be used to r ec rea te ac tua lprevious br igh tness l eve l s .

However, the Cour t f inds t h a t LGD's con ten t ions are no tsupported by th e record . The compressed data i s used to r ec rea tea ctu al b rig htn es s l eve l s . This i s supported by LDG'spresen ta t ion , AUO-1538 a t page 9, which descr ibes thedecompressed data as th e " re co ns tr uc te d p re vio us frame." This i sa lso supported by th e te stim on y o f LGD's witness , Mr. Kim, whot e s t i f i ed t h a t decompression recovers " the o r ig ina l image o rc lose to th e o r ig ina l image" and th at id ea lly th e decompresseddata i s " iden t ica l " to the o r ig ina l data but t he re may be "somesmal l , " "acceptable" changes. Tr. 78:5-22 (C.G. Kim); Tr.

35

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

38/77

179:22-181:22 (S i lza r s ) . While it i s t ru e th a t the decompresseddata i s not used to a ctu al ly display the images, it i s used tolook up overdr ive va lues , which in tu rn d is pla y the image. Thus,e r ro r s in the decompressed data would impact th e qua l i ty of thed i sp layed image. Tr. 1363:3-1364:9 (S i l za rs ) . In sum, the Cour tconcludes t h a t the t iming con t ro l l e rs do s to re the ac tua lprev ious br ightness l eve l s in compressed form, and the re fo re , theCourt f inds t h a t th e accused devices meet the "s to rage fo rs to r ing the prev ious br ightness l eve l of th e video s igna l inpu tthrough sa id input log ic" claim element .

Claim 1: a de terminator for determining an outputbrightness l e v e l based on the previous brightness l e v e lstored in sa id s torage and the next brightness l e v e l ofthe next video s ignal input to sa id input l og ic

The Cour t concludes tha t th e accused dev ices meet th i s claiml im i t a t i on , because LGD's t iming con t ro l l e r c hip s in clu de alookup t ab le , which i s the determinator fo r determining an ou tpu tbr ightness l eve l . The b rig htn es s le ve l outpu t by the lookupt ab le i s based on the previous br igh tness l eve l , which was s to redin the frame memory, and the next br ightness l eve l . In theexample of the New Monde lookup t ab le , the br ightness l eve l fo rthe prev ious frame and the current frame ranges from 0 to 255.T r. 1 72 :1 4- 17 3:9 (S i lza rs ) i AUO-165 a t 26/51. The lookup t ab l ei s used to compare the video information ( i . e . the br igh tnesslevel) in the prev ious frame to the br ightness information in th ecur ren t frame and apply a cor rec t ion . Tr. 171:15-172:13

36

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

39/77

(S i lza r s ) ; AUO-165 a t 4/51. Each of the t iming con t ro l l e r sanalyzed by Dr. Si lza rs includes a s imi l a r lookup t ab le .

LGD's argument t h a t t h i s claim l imi t a t ion i s not met r e l a t e sto i t s argument regarding the s to rage of previous br igh tnessl eve l s , which the Court has dec l ined to accep t . In add i t ion , LGDargues t h a t the t iming c on tr ol le rs in the accused products do notuse "of f se t " values as requ i red by th e l imi t a t ion "a determina to rfo r determining an outpu t br ightness l eve l . " However, th e cla imterms do not inc lude the term "o f fse t , " and the Court i s notpersuaded t h a t an "of f se t " should be read in to the accuseddev ices . Accordingly , the Court concludes t h a t th e accuseddevices s at i s fy th is cla im l imi t a t ion .

Claim 1: so as to make a time in tegrat ion quant ity ofa brightness change subs tant ia l ly equal to an idea lquant i ty of l i gh t in a s tat ionary s ta te with respect tothe next brightness l e v e l

The Cour t concludes t ha t the accused products meet thel imi t a t ions of t h i s cla im e lement . The determina to r must providean outpu t br ightness l eve l t ha t achieves th e claimed r e su l t s : at ime i n t eg ra t ion of a br ightness change t h a t i s subs t an t i a l l yequal to an idea l quan t i ty of l i gh t . Dr. S ilz ar s te s te d theaccused products , measuring the br ightness change and not ing t h a tth e br igh tness change was within 20% of the idea l response. Seee .g . AUO-1075; Tr. 193:17-195:8; 1370:23-1372:9 (S i l za rs ) .

LGD contends t h a t Dr. S i l z a r s ' s t e s t r e su l t s a re inaccura tefo r severa l reasons , including t h a t Dr. S i l z a r s ' s ca lcu la t ions

37

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

40/77

d i d not r e f l e c t t h e " t o t a l amount of l i g h t " t h a t would be e m i t t e dfrom t h e l i q u i d c r y s t a l c e l l . Based on t h e C o u r t ' s claimc o n s t r u c t i o n , however, t h e cla ims do not r e f e r t o t h e t o t a lamount of l i g h t t h a t would be e m i t t e d by an i d e a l l i q u i d c r y s t a lc e l l . Rather , t h e cla ims a r e d i r e c t e d t o t h e amount o f l i g h tt h a t would be e m i t t e d due t o t h e b r i g h t n e s s change. F u r t h e r , theCourt c r e d i t s Dr. S i l z a r s 's t e s t r e s u l t s , and concludes, based onh i s tes t imony, t h a t a b r i g h t n e s s change w i t h i n 20% i ss u b s t a n t i a l l y equal t o an i d e a l q u a n t i t y o f l i g h t i n a s t a t i o n a r ys t a t e with r e s p e c t t o t h e next b r i g h t n e s s l e v e l .

LGD's argument t h a t t h i s claim element i s not met i n t h eaccused devices i s premised on t h e n o t i o n t h a t " s u b s t a n t i a l l yequal" sh ou ld a ls o r ep r e se n t an improvement i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e" i d e a l q u a l i t y o f l i g h t . " However, the Court has not i n c l u d e dt h i s a d d i t i o n a l language i n i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n tterms, and t h e r e f o r e , t h e Court concludes t h a t an improvement i snot n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s claim element .

In sum, t h e Court f i n d s t h a t AUO has e s t a b l i s h e d by apreponderance of t h e evidence , t h a t t h e accused LGD products meett h e elements o f claim 1 of the '160 p a t e n t . Accordingly , t h eCourt concludes t h a t LGD i n f r i n g e s claim 1 o f t h e '160 p a t e n t .

38

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

41/77

Claim 2: The l iq u id c ry st al disp lay according to claimI , wherein said de t e rmina tor comprising a tab le fors tor ing a brightness l eve l determined by thec har a ct er is ti c o f a l iq u id c ry st al c e l l accordingto a relat ion between the previous brightnessl e v e l and the next brightness l e ve l , and determiningthe output brightness l e v e l by modifying said nextbrightness l eve l based on the brightness l e v e l readfrom said table .

The Court concludes t ha t the l imi t a t ions descr ibed in claim2 are met in the accused devices . The dete rmina tor in LGD'st iming cont ro l le r ch ips comprises a t ab le fo r s to rin g abr igh tness l eve l . This t ab le i s the lookup t ab le , which s to res abr ightness l eve l . Tr. 204:11 -16 , 172:14 -173:18 (S i l za rs ) ; AUO-165 a t 26/51. The lookup t ab le s to res br ightness l eve l s t ha tvary according to the re la t ion between the previous br ightnessleve l and the next br ightness l eve l . Id . The lookup t ab levalues are determined by the cha rac t e r i s t i c s of the l i qu idc rys ta l ce l l . They are determined by t r i a l and e r ro r usingmeasurements of the response of the l i qu id c rys t a l ce l l . Aperson makes the measurements using a photodiode, which measuresl i gh t , and an osci l loscope. Tr. 79:24-80:24 (C.G. Kim).

Claim 3: The l iq u id c ry sta l disp lay according to claim2, wherein: said video s ignal input through sa id inputl og i c comprises a plura l i ty of color s igna l s ; and

The Court concludes tha t th i s claim element i s met in theaccused devices . The video s igna l input includes a p lu ra l i t y ofco lo r s igna l s . In pa r t i cu l a r , the LVDS video s igna l includesthree separa te colors : red , green and blue . Tr. 204:17-205:4;

39

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

42/77

434:24-435:10 (S i l za r s ) ; AUO-165 a t 1 /51 . The LVDS r ece ive r ,which inputs th e LVDS s igna l , co nv erts th e LVDS da ta stream backin to 28 b i t s o r RGB, t ha t i s red , green and blue da ta . AUO-165a t 3/51, 4/51.

Claim 3: sa id tab le in said de t e rminator i s providedfor each o f sa id co lo r s igna l s .

The Court concludes tha t t h i s claim element i s also met inthe accused devices . The lookup t ab le inc ludes th re e se pa ra telookup t ab l e s , one each fo r red , blue and green da ta .Spec i f i ca l ly , t he re a re t h ree Ari thmet ic LUTs, o r lookup t ab l e s ,in the block diagram fo r the New Monde chip . The Ari thmet ic LUTseach output 8 b i t s of red , green and b lue , r e spec t ive ly . Tr.205:5-10 (S i l za r s ) ; AUO-165 a t 3/51, 14/51; Tr. 958:12-23(Eccles) .

In sum, the Court concludes t h a t AUO has e s t ab l i shed by ap re ponder an ce o f the evidence , t ha t the accused LGD produc ts meetthe elements of cla im 3 of the '157 pa ten t . The LGD LCD modulesc on ta in in g th e New Monde con t ro l l e r chip inc lude every element ofclaim 3 of the '160 pa ten t . Further , the LGD modules conta in ingthe New Monde t iming con t ro l l e r ch ip , which in f r inge cla im 1 arer ep resen ta t ive of the accused products c on ta in in g th e t imingcon t ro l l e r ch ips i den t i f i ed in AUO-1553, the l i s t i ng of t imingcon t ro l l e r ch ips analyzed fo r in f r ingement . Tr. 169: 6 - 23, 170: 8 -18 (S i l za r s ) . Each of these products th er efo re a ls o in f r ingesclaim 3. Accordingly , the Court concludes t ha t LGD in f r inges

40

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

43/77

claim 3 of the '160 pa ten t .C. Whether LGD In f r inges cla ims 7 and 16 of AUO's '629

Paten t

1. AUO's s tanding to a s se r t the '629 pa ten tAs a threshold matter , LGD contends t ha t AUO l acks

cons t i tu t iona l s tanding to a s se r t th e '629 p ate nt a ga in st LGD,because AUO was not the owner of the '629 pa ten t a t the t ime t h i sac t ion was f i l ed . LGD contends t h a t th e inven to rs of th e '629patent assigned t h e i r r igh t s in th e paten t to IBM Japan, bu t IBMJapan n ev er a ssig ne d i t s r igh t s to In te rna t iona l BusinessMachines Corporat ion (US) ("IBM USA") before IBM USA ass igned i t sr igh t s to AUO in June 2005. Thus, LGD contends t h a t th e June2005 ass ignment could not have included th e '629 pa ten t . Inaddi t ion , LGD contends t ha t AUO cannot cure t h i s s tanding de fec tthrough th e re t roac t ive app l i ca t ion of the Paten t Assignment Formf i l ed with the PTO in May 2007 (LGDTX 931) , which purported toass ign the r igh t s in the '629 pa ten t from the named inven to rs toIBM USA.

In respo nse , AUO contends t h a t the '629 pa ten t i ssued namingIBM USA as th e assig ne e on the face of the pa ten t , and IBM USArece ived title to the '629 paten t through a success ion ofass ignment agreements. As a r e su l t , AUO contends t ha t the June2005 Paten t Assignment Agreement, in which IBM USA t r ans fe r redand ass igned to AUO " a l l r igh t , title and i n t e r e s t in and to"cer t a in s p ec if ie d p a te n ts , including th e '629 patent "along with

41

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

44/77

any and a l l damages fo r in fr in gement o f any of th e as sig nedpa ten t s before , on and af t e r" June 30, 2005, "and the sole r i gh tto sue the re fo r under the assigned pa ten t s , " was su f f i c i en t tot r an s fe r title of the '629 pa ten t from IBM USA to AUO.

In a pa ten t case , as in a l l federa l ac t ions , a p l a i n t i f fmust have standing to sue before a claim can be brought . SicomSys. v. Agi len t Techs . , Inc . , 427 F.3d 971, 975 (Fed. Cir . 2005)The burden to e s t ab l i sh s tand ing r e s t s on th e par ty br ing ingsu i t . Id .

The ass igna t ion on th e face of a pa ten t i s "not a conclus iveindica t ion" of pa ten t ownership.5 U.S. Phi l ips Corp. v. IwasakiElec. Co., 505 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir . 2007) Rather , thep l a i n t i f f must demonst ra te t h a t it i s the owner /patentee ,ass ignee , o r gran tee of the pa ten t - in - su i t . See 35 U.S.C. 281;Morrow v. M icrosoft Corp. , 499 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir . 2007);Fai rch i ld Semiconductor Corp. v. Power In teg ra t ions , Inc . , 2007U.S. Dis t . Lexis 93711, *13-14 (D. Del. 2007).

5 There i s some au thor i ty , however, suggest ing t h a t th eownership data provided on th e face of a pa ten t c r ea t e s apresumption of ownership . A rachnid v. Merit Indus t . , Inc . , 939F.2d 1574, 1578 n .2 (Fed. Cir . 1991); Board of T rus tees of theLeland Stanford Jun io r Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys . , Inc . , 487F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1111 n.4 (N.D. Cal. 2007) . Regardless ofwhether th e Cou rt view s the naming of IBM USA as th e as sig nee onth e face of the pa ten t as a presumption of ownership o r not , theCourt concludes t ha t assignment to IBM USA has been demonst ra tede i the r af f i rmat ive ly by AUO o r by the f ac t t h a t LGD has notovercome the presumption t h a t l ega l t i t l e to the '629 pa ten tves ted in IBM USA as th e a ss ig ne e.

42

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

45/77

On the record presen ted , the Court concludes t ha t AUO hasdemonstrated by c red ib le chain of title evidence t h a t it i s th eass ignee of the '629 pa ten t . 6 LGD contends t ha t th e in ve nto rsass igned t h e i r r igh t s to the in ve ntio n claimed in the '629 pa ten tto IBM Japan in 2000, and the re was no d i r ec t conveyance ofr igh t s between IBM Japan and IBM USA p r i o r to IBM USA'sassignment to AUO. However, LGD's argument ig no re s th eassignment documents preda t ing 2000. Spec i f i c a l l y , IBM USA andIBM World Trade ("World Trade") en tered in to an agreement datedJanuary I , 1963, in which IBM USA acqu i red any pa ten t s t ha t WorldTrade had o r t h e rea f t e r acqu i red . AUO-302 a t IBM 300004.Thereaf te r , IBM Japan and World Trade executed two agreements inwhich IBM Japan gran ted to World t rade the r i gh t to a l l of IBM'spa ten t app l ica t ions and pa ten t s in coun t r i e s o the r than Japan.The f i r s t agreement dated June 25, 1981, amended a previous 1960agreement and provided t ha t IBM Japan g ran ts " to World Tradeand/or i t s des ignees , in r e spec t to inven t ions owned o rcon t ro l led by IBM Japan, the r igh t in c ou ntr ie s o ther than Japanto f i l e o r have f i l ed on i t s behal f or on behal f o f suchdes ignees , and to own such app l i ca t ions fo r pa ten t s and th epa ten t s i s su ing thereon . " AUO-303 a t IBM 3000014-300015.The 1981 agreement was extended by the Decembe r 1990 l e t t e r

6 LGD's o bje ctio ns to th e admission of t h i s evidence a readdressed by a separa te ly i ssued Memorandum Opinion and Order .43

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

46/77

agreement which provided t h a t th e 1960 agreement, as amended,would not terminate un t i l December 31, 2000. AUO-304.

The inven to rs t r ans fe r red t h e i r ownership i n t e r e s t s to IBMJapan in August 2000, p r i o r to the t e rmina t ion o f the 1960agr eement b etween IBM Japan and IBM World Trade, as amended byth e 1981 and 1990 agreements . AUO-258, AUO-P-963. Thus, byopera t ion o f these agreements and th e ea r l i e r 1963 agreementbetween World Trade and IBM USA, title o f the '629 pa ten t f lowedfrom IBM Japan to IBM USA through World T ra de 's d es ig n ati on ofIBM USA as i t s designee. Accordingly, the Court concludes t h a tIBM USA held title to the '629 patent on the date o f i t s i ssuanceand in 2005 when IBM USA a ss ig ne d th e '629 pa ten t to AUO, andt he re fo re , AUO was the r i gh t fu l owner of the '629 pa ten t a t thet ime it commenced t h i s ac t ion .

2 . Infr ingement of Claim 7 and Claim 16Af te r comparing LGD's accused products with cla ims 7 and 16

of AUO's '629 pa ten t , the Court concludes t h a t AUO hases tab l i shed by a preponderance of the evidence t h a t LGD l i t e r a l l yi n f r inges the '629 pa ten t .

Claim 1 Preamble: An array substra te for disp layThe Court f inds t h a t t h i s cla im element i s met in th e

accused devices. An array su bs t ra te , in the con tex t of l i qu idc ry s t a l di sp lay modules, i s an i ns u la ti ng s u bs tr at e car ry ing oneo r more arrays of components such as th in fi lm t r ans i s to r s . '629

44

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

47/77

pa ten t , co l . 1, 11.8-20i T r. 1 42 :2 0- 14 3:3 (S i l za rs ) . LGD doesnot appear to ob jec t to t h i s cha rac t e r i za t ion of an ar raysubs t ra t e , ye t LGD appears to take i s sue with whether t h i sl imi t a t ion i s met in the accused produc ts . In the Cour t ' s view,LGD's argument here i s apparent ly based on semant ics r a t he r thanon subs tance . Based on the r ep resen ta t ion demonstrated in cour tby Dr. Si l z a r s , th e Cour t f inds t ha t the LGD's accused produc tsinc lude a subs t r a te made from a l aye r of g l a s s and an ar ray oft h in f i lm t r ans i s t o r s among the components formed on the g l a s ssubs t ra t e . T r. 1 42 :1 1-1 43 :3 , 128:11-129:4 (S i lzars ) i AUO-1571.

Claim 1: a layer o f an insulat ing subs trate ,having an area

The Court concludes t ha t t h i s claim element i s met in th eaccused devices . Glass i s a s u it ab le i ns u la ti ng mate r ia l , andthe ar ray subs t ra t e of the r ep resen ta t ive accused produc t ,LC320W01, inc ludes a l aye r of g lass as the i nsu la t ing mate r ia l .T r. 1 42 :1 1-1 43 :3 (S i l za rs ) i Tr. 843 :22-845 :8 ,864 :16-21(Rubloff) . In add i t i on , t ha t l aye r of g l a s s has an area orspec i f i ed reg ion where the dummy conduct ive pa t t e rns are loca ted ,as discussed more fu l ly below. Tr. 143:4-145:5 (S i lzars ) i AUO-1567.

Claim 1: a th in f ilm t rans i s tor array formed onthe insulat ing substra te

The Court concludes t ha t t h i s element i s met in the accuseddevices . LC320W01 inc ludes a t h in f i lm t r a n s i s t o r ar ray . AUO-

45

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

48/77

1567; AUO-774-1; T r. 1 40 :1 6-1 41 :9 (S i l za rs ) . The th in fi lmt r a n s i s t o r a r ray i s formed on an i ns ul at in g s ub st ra te whenmanufactured. Tr. 14 0:1 6-1 41 :9 , Tr. 128:11-129:4 , 129:13-131:2(S i lza r s ) ; AUO-1568-1574. Dr. Rubloff did not dispute Dr.S i l z a r s ' s tes t imony t ha t the accused products meet t h i s cla ime lement . LGD-1084 a t 629-009.

Claim 1: a p lu ra li ty o f wiring arranged on theinsulat ing subs trate , each wiring having a f i r s tend, the wiring in communication with a t l e a s t oneof the t rans i s tor s in the th in f i lm array

The Court concludes t h a t the accused p ro du cts in clu de ap lu ra l i t y of w iring as the Court has const rued t ha t term. Thep lu ra l i t y of wiring in LC320W01 i s l abe led in AUO-1567. As shownin AUO-1567, the p lu ra l i t y of wir ing i s formed and arranged onthe d ev ic e 's in su la tin g su bs t ra te in a fan-out pa t t e rn betweenthe connect ion pads and the edge o f the t h in fi lm t r an s i s t o rarray . Tr. 12 5:1-1 5, 140:11-15 (S i lza r s ) ; AUO-P-1479-02, AUO-P-1479-39; AUO-P-1479-45; AUO 1568; AUO-1570; AUO-1571. Thep lu ra l i t y of wiring a lso extends between, on a f i r s t end,connect ion pads, and on a second end, the th in fi lm t r ans i s to r sof the TFT a r ray . T r. 1 25 :1 -1 26 :7 (S i lza r s ) . The wiring of theLC320W01 communicates w ith the t h in film t r ans i s to r s of the TFTa r ray . T r. 1 25 :1 6- 12 9:4 , 1 39 :1 0-1 40 :1 5 (S i lza r s ) ; AUO-1567; AUO-1568; AUO-1570; AUO-1571. Dr. Rubloff d id not dispu te Dr.Si l z a r s ' tes t imony t h a t t h i s cla im element was met in the accusedproduct s . LGD-1084 a t 629-009.

46

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

49/77

Claim 1: connect ion pads, each connect ion padcontact ing the f i r s t end o f a t most one o f theplura l i ty of wir ings

LGD does not appear to d ispu te t h a t t h i s cla im element i smet in the accused dev ices . The pa r t i e s agreed t h a t th e cla imterm "connect ion pads" means "conduct ive pa t t e rn s on th esubs t r a t e t h a t e l e c t r i c a l l y connect th e p lu r a l i t y of wir ing toc i r c u i t s loca ted ex t e rna l to the subs t r a t e . " Tr . 138:5-139:9(S i lza r s ) . The Court concludes t h a t t h i s cla im element i s foundin LC320W01. In LC320W01, th e connect ion pads are i d en t i f i ed inAUO-1567 and AUO-1568 and a re loc ated along a t l e a s t one edge ofth e in s u la ti ng s u bs tr at e of th e LC320W01. Tr. 123:19-124:22(S i l zars) .

Claim 1: p ixe l e lec trodesLGD does not appear to dispu te t h a t t h i s cla im element i s

met in th e accused dev ices . P ixe ls o r p i c t u r e e lements areinc luded on a th in f i lm t r a n s i s t o r a r r ay . Tr. 310:5-311:3(Rubloff - Phase I I ) . Pixe l s inc lude p ixe l e lec t rodes t h a topera t e to al low th e passage of l i g h t . Tr. 310:5-311:3 (Rubloff- Phase I I ) . The Court concludes t h a t p ix e l e le ctr od es a rep resen t in th e a rr ay s u bs tr at e of th e LC320W01. Spec i f i c a l l y ,

th e LC320W01 inc ludes a p lu ra l i t y of t r an spa ren t e lec t rodeswhich, in a completed produc t , s t o r e and apply a d r iv ing vo l tageto a p i x e l in an LCD. AUO-1567; T r. 1 41 :1 0-1 42 :1 0 (S i lza r s ) .

47

8/9/2019 06-726a-I

50/77

Claim 1: dummy conductive patterns , the dummypatterns compris ing at l e a s t about 30% of the areaof the insulat ing subs trate , the dummy conductivepatterns s i tuated between th e c onne ctio n pads andthe p ixe l e lec trodes such that the dummy patternsare not in contact with any o f the w ir in g

The Court concludes t h a t t h i s cla im element i s p r e s e n t i nt h e accused d e v i c e s . LGD r e f e r s t o t h e accused dummy conduct ivep a t t e r n s as " li n e - o n - g l a s s " o r LOG p a t t e r n s . Tr. 831:11-832:23(Rubloff) . These p a t t e r n s a r e l o c a t e d n e a r t h e edge of t h e

i n s u l a t i n g s u b s t r a t e , between the connect ion pads and p i x e le l e c t r o d e s . They a r e not i n c o n t a c t with any of t h e w ir i n g . Tr.131:3-23, 144:5-145:5 , 146:19-22 ( S i l z a r s ) i AUO-1567, AUO-1569.These p a t t e r n s cover more than 50% of t h e a r e a o r s p e c i f i e dr e g i o n i n which t h e y a r e s i t u a t e d . Tr. 146:11-18 ( S i l z a r s ) .

LGD's noninfringement argument r e g a r d i n g t h i s c l a i m elementi s t w o - f o l d . F i r s t , LGD contends t h a t t h e accused d e v i c e s do nothave "dummy conduct ive p a t t e r n s " t h a t a r e meant t o a i d duringe t c h i n g and do not convey s i g n a l s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , LGD'sargument s u g g e s t s t h a t a f t e r t h e completed a r r a y s u b s t r a t e hasbeen combined with a number of components t o form a completed LCDmodule t h e r e i s an i n d i r e c t connect ion t o t h e wiring and t h eaccused dummy p a t t e r n s convey s i g n a l s . LGD's argument, however,i s based upon cla im c o n s t r u c t i o n l i m i ta t i o n s t h a t t h e Cour t hasnot ac cep ted . In a d d i t i o n , t h e claim language does not p r o h i b i ti n d i r e c t e l e c t r i