PTAB

IPR2019-00347

Shenzhen AOTO Electronics Co Ltd v. Ultravision Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MODULAR DISPLAY PANEL
  • Brief Description: The ’306 patent is directed to waterproof, modular LED display systems. The technology purports to offer a lightweight, "no cabinet" design where individual display panels are hermetically sealed and passively cooled, allowing them to be assembled into larger displays and exposed directly to the ambient environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Rycyna and Zampini - Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-14, 21, 23, and 25-27 are obvious over Rycyna in view of Zampini.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rycyna (Application # 2013/0271973), Zampini (Application # 2007/0247842).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rycyna, which describes a modular LED display system, teaches the majority of limitations in independent claim 1, including a modular panel with a casing, recess, attachment points, PCB, LEDs, power supply, louvers, and a waterproof seal. To meet the remaining limitations of the challenged claims, Petitioner pointed to Zampini. For claim 21, which requires a plastic housing and a potting compound, Zampini teaches using plastic as a housing material and an epoxy or thermal film that serves as a potting material for waterproofing. For other dependent claims, Zampini teaches an on-board LED driver circuit (claim 1) and a thermal film that acts as a heat sink between the PCB and casing (claim 3). Petitioner contended that all other limitations were either taught by the combination or would have been obvious design choices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Rycyna and Zampini because both references are directed to modular LED panels and share objectives of creating lightweight, low-cost, and waterproof systems. A POSITA would incorporate Zampini's specific teachings—such as using lighter plastic housings, on-board driver circuits to reduce wiring, and applying potting compounds for reliable weatherproofing—into Rycyna's foundational system to improve performance, reduce weight, and lower manufacturing costs.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making this combination. The proposed modifications involve substituting well-known materials (plastic for metal), adding standard components (on-board drivers, heat sinks), and applying routine techniques (potting) into a similar system, which would yield predictable improvements without requiring a major redesign of Rycyna's panel.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Rycyna - Claims 16, 18, and 19 are anticipated by Rycyna.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rycyna (Application # 2013/0271973).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Rycyna alone discloses every element of independent claim 16, which is directed to a multi-panel display system. Rycyna teaches a modular display system comprising a mechanical support structure (e.g., connecting brackets) with multiple LED panels mounted to form an integrated display. Petitioner mapped elements of Rycyna to show each panel includes a casing with a recess, attachment points, a PCB, LEDs, and a power supply. Critically, Petitioner argued that Rycyna explicitly teaches the system is sealed to be waterproof for environmental exposure without the use of traditional cabinets and is cooled passively without fans, directly reading on the claim limitations. Petitioner further argued that Rycyna also teaches the additional limitations of dependent claim 18 (a framework of louvers) and claim 19 (a data receiver box/controller mounted to the support structure).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • For the term "driver circuit," Petitioner agreed to adopt the Patent Owner's proposed construction of "LED driver circuit" for the purposes of the IPR proceeding. Petitioner noted this adoption was made because indefiniteness challenges are not permitted in IPR and argued the claims are unpatentable even under the Patent Owner's construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), noting that the primary references relied upon in the petition, Rycyna and Zampini, were not applied by the patent examiner during the original prosecution.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The petition contended that many of the challenged claims at issue in the IPR had already been dropped from the ITC case. Furthermore, because ITC invalidity decisions are not binding on the stayed district court actions where the patent is also asserted, instituting the IPR would promote judicial efficiency by resolving the validity of all challenged claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 25-27 of the ’306 patent as unpatentable.