SFC Co Ltd v. LG Chem Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00182
• Patent #: 8,759,818
• Filed: November 26, 2019
• Petitioner(s): SFC Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): LG CHEM, Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-28

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Aryl-Substituted Anthracene Compounds
• Brief Description: The ’818 patent discloses aryl-substituted anthracene compounds that are at least partially deuterated (i.e., one or more hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium). These compounds are intended for use in active layers of organic electronic devices, such as Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs), to improve device stability and operational lifetime.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Saitoh I - Claims 1-28 are anticipated by Saitoh I

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Saitoh I (Application # 2004/0263067).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Saitoh I explicitly discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Specifically, Petitioner identified "Compound 32" in Saitoh I as an aryl-substituted anthracene compound having the exact core structure and substituent groups required by independent claim 1. Petitioner asserted that Compound 32 is heavily deuterated, meeting the claim 1 requirement of "at least one D," as well as the specific deuteration percentage limitations of dependent claims 2 (at least 10%) and 3 (at least 50%). Petitioner further contended that Compound 32 and other disclosed examples in Saitoh I meet the limitations of all other compound claims (4-18, 26, 28). For the device claims (19-25, 27), Petitioner argued that Saitoh I discloses incorporating these compounds into an organic luminescent device with the claimed structure, including use as a host or dopant in an active layer.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Saitoh II - Claims 1-28 are anticipated by Saitoh II

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Saitoh II (Application # 2006/0255723).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Saitoh II, similar to Saitoh I, explicitly discloses aryl-substituted anthracene compounds that meet all limitations of the challenged claims. Petitioner pointed to "Compounds 4, 5, 34, and 36" disclosed in Saitoh II as structures that fall within the scope of independent claim 1. These compounds are shown with extensive deuteration on both the anthracene core and the aryl substituent groups, allegedly satisfying the limitations of claims 1-7 and 10-12. Petitioner asserted that the various aryl and heteroaryl groups disclosed in Saitoh II for these compounds meet the requirements of the remaining dependent compound claims. Likewise, Petitioner argued Saitoh II’s disclosure of using these compounds in OLEDs, including as dopants or hosts in a light-emitting layer between two electrodes, anticipates device claims 19-25 and 27.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Saitoh I and McCormick - Claim 25 is obvious over Saitoh I in view of McCormick

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Saitoh I (Application # 2004/0263067) and McCormick (Patent 6,611,096).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 25 depends from claim 24, which recites a device with a hole injection layer. Claim 25 further specifies this layer comprises "at least one electrically conductive polymer and at least one fluorinated acid polymer." Petitioner asserted that Saitoh I discloses devices with hole injection layers comprising conductive polymers, such as poly(thiophene). While Saitoh I does not explicitly mention a "fluorinated acid polymer," McCormick taught that incorporating acid-substituted polymers, including those containing fluorinated acids, into conductive polymer layers was a well-known method to improve conductivity and hole injection in OLEDs.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Saitoh I and McCormick to improve the performance of the OLED device disclosed in Saitoh I. Saitoh I teaches a general device structure, and McCormick provides a known solution—adding fluorinated acid polymers—to the known problem of optimizing conductivity and hole injection efficiency in the conductive polymer layers used in such devices.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because using acid-substituted polymers to enhance the properties of conductive polymers like poly(thiophene) was a conventional and well-understood technique in the OLED field at the time of the invention.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation grounds against all claims based on Saitoh II. Petitioner also asserted obviousness challenges against claims 4, 16, and 17 over Saitoh I alone, and in combination with Murase (EP 1748045), for teaching specific heteroaryl groups. Further obviousness grounds combined Saitoh II with Murase or McCormick, relying on similar rationales.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-28 of the ’818 patent as unpatentable.