View Inc v. Sage ElectrochRomics Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-00275
• Patent #: 6,337,758
• Filed: November 19, 2014
• Petitioner(s): View, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Sage Electrochromics, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 4, and 6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method of Processing an Electrochemical Device
• Brief Description: The ’758 patent discloses a method for processing electrochromic devices, such as smart glass, to mitigate leakage currents that cause performance degradation. The alleged invention involves inhibiting the functionality of peripheral layers by cutting a groove along a "closed line" to delimit an "inactive peripheral region," thereby electrically isolating the central active area of the device from edge defects.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, and 6 are anticipated by Kallman under 35 U.S.C. §102

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kallman (Patent 5,657,150).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kallman disclosed the identical solution to the same problem of leakage currents at the edges of an electrochromic device. Independent claim 1 recites a method of inhibiting functionality in a peripheral region by cutting through at least one functional layer along a "closed line," leaving one electroconductive layer intact. Petitioner asserted that Kallman’s "edge-isolation channel 52," shown in its Figure 4, is a groove cut around the device's periphery to electrically isolate the top and bottom electrode layers. This channel is described as extending continuously around the perimeter, thus forming a "closed line." The channel cuts through the top electroconductive layer (32) and part of the electrochromic layer (30) but does not penetrate the bottom electroconductive layer (28), directly mapping to the limitations of claim 1. This process inherently creates an inactive peripheral region between the channel and the device edge.
  • Prior Art Mapping (Dependent Claims): Petitioner contended Kallman anticipated dependent claims 4 and 6. For claim 4, Kallman was alleged to teach performing the cutting step after all functional layers have been deposited on the substrate. For claim 6, Kallman was alleged to explicitly disclose that its isolation channel is preferably formed by "use of a laser," satisfying the "laser irradiation" limitation.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 4, and 6 are anticipated by Goldner under 35 U.S.C. §102

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Goldner (Patent 6,094,292).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Goldner also disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. While Goldner’s stated goal was to create multiple, independently controllable electrochromic devices on a single substrate, the technical method used for isolation was identical to that claimed in the ’758 patent. Goldner taught cutting grooves to create separate active device regions, which electrically isolates them from inactive surrounding regions. Specifically, Goldner’s Figure 9B showed scribing or laser ablating grooves through the top transparent conductor layer (180) and down to the electrolyte layer (150), while leaving the bottom conductor layer (120) intact. Petitioner argued these grooves are cut along a "closed line" that circumscribes each active device, thereby delimiting an inactive peripheral region between the groove and the surrounding area.
  • Prior Art Mapping (Dependent Claims): Petitioner argued Goldner anticipated the dependent claims. Goldner’s process of "scribing or laser ablating the top layers of the multi-layered deposit" necessarily occurs after all functional layers have been provided, meeting claim 4. Goldner’s disclosure of cutting using a "laser ablation" process or a "diamond tipped scribe" was argued to satisfy the "laser irradiation" or "mechanical means" limitations of claim 6.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed a construction for the key term "closed line," arguing it was central to the anticipation analysis.
  • Term: "closed line"
  • Proposed Construction: "a single line around an area, separating the area from the inactive region outside the line on all sides on the same layer."
  • Rationale: Petitioner asserted this construction was consistent with the patent's description of a groove that "follows the perimeter of the device" to create an inactive border. This construction was necessary to show that Kallman's "continuously around perimeter" channel and Goldner's grooves circumscribing each device met the claim limitation. Petitioner noted that the Patent Owner had proposed a substantially similar construction in parallel district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4, and 6 of the ’758 patent as unpatentable.