Lenovo United States Inc v. Neodron Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00081
• Patent #: 7,821,502
• Filed: October 22, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Neodron Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Capacitive Sensor
• Brief Description: The ’502 patent relates to a capacitive sensor comprising column and row electrodes formed on a single surface of a substrate for determining the position of an object. The arrangement features electrodes coupled together via connections located either within the sensing area or, notably, via "wrap-around" connections that are routed outside the sensing area to avoid crossing over other electrodes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Grummer and Tagg - Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20-23 are obvious over Grummer in view of Tagg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Grummer (Patent 4,233,522) and Tagg (Application # 2003/0067451).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Grummer taught a capacitive touch panel with an array of touch-sensitive cells formed in a single layer, including row and column electrodes. Grummer’s design, however, included internal "cross over" connectors to link broken electrode segments. Petitioner asserted that Tagg taught a capacitive touch screen with electrodes arranged in rows and columns that are electrically connected via "wrap around" conductive wires located outside the primary sensing area. By combining these references, Petitioner contended all limitations of the independent claims (e.g., claim 1, 17, 22) are met, providing a single-layer sensor with external wrap-around connections.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Grummer and Tagg to achieve an improved sensor design. Grummer itself disparaged internal crossovers, noting their elimination "substantially simplifies and improves panel fabrication," but its alternative was a more complex two-layer design. A POSITA, seeking to realize the benefits of Grummer’s simpler single-layer construction without the disadvantage of internal crossovers, would have looked to solutions like Tagg, which explicitly taught using wrap-around connections outside the sensing area to connect electrode segments. The combination would create the ideal sensor suggested by Grummer: a simple, single-layer design without internal crossovers.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both Grummer and Tagg taught similar capacitive touch screen technologies, and the modification involved applying Tagg’s known connection routing technique to Grummer’s single-layer electrode layout, a predictable integration of established concepts.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Grummer, Tagg, and Gillespie - Claims 7, 15, 19, and 24 are obvious over Grummer in view of Tagg in further view of Gillespie.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Grummer (Patent 4,233,522), Tagg (Application # 2003/0067451), and Gillespie (Patent 5,880,411).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Grummer and Tagg from Ground 1 and added Gillespie to teach limitations specific to claims 7, 15, 19, and 24. Petitioner argued Gillespie taught using "charge transfer" measurement techniques (claim 7), employing an insulating panel over the electrodes to form a keypad (claims 15 and 24), and using a processor to calculate the "centroid" of touch signals (claim 19). Gillespie disclosed a two-dimensional capacitive sensing system that used simultaneous charge-transfer measurement to generate a profile of a finger's proximity, which is faster and more immune to noise than the sequential scanning methods in Grummer.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Grummer/Tagg system with Gillespie's teachings to improve performance. Gillespie expressly taught that its simultaneous sensing method allows for a very short sensing cycle, fast response, and high immunity to electrical interference, overcoming the noise susceptibility of sequential scanning approaches. Therefore, a POSITA would incorporate Gillespie's charge-transfer and centroid calculation methods into the Grummer/Tagg sensor to achieve a more robust and responsive device.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success in integrating Gillespie's processing techniques into the Grummer/Tagg sensor architecture. The components for detecting a touch position in Gillespie could be readily incorporated into Grummer's similar electrode system, as Grummer itself noted its system could employ any well-known capacitive scanning approach.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "sensing area" / "active sensing region": Petitioner argued these terms should be construed as the area defined by the outside edges of the perimeter electrodes. This construction was asserted to be critical for distinguishing between connections made inside the sensing area (which the patent sought to avoid) and connections made outside the sensing area (the patent’s purported invention), such as the "wrap-around connections."
• "wrap-around connection": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as "electrical connections for connecting either column or row electrodes that wrap around other electrodes in the row or column, irrespective of their shape or point of attachment." This broad construction was argued as necessary for the prior art, which showed various external connection geometries, to meet the claim limitations.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under either 35 U.S.C. §314(a) or §325(d) would be inappropriate. The petition was filed with a motion for joinder to an earlier IPR filed by Apple Inc. (IPR2020-01331). Petitioner contended this was a "me-too" or "copycat" petition and that by agreeing to assume a "passive understudy role," the factors from General Plastic concerning serial petitions were neutralized and would not burden the Patent Owner or the Board.
• Regarding the Fintiv factors for denial based on parallel district court litigation, Petitioner argued the factors strongly favored institution. They asserted that the related district court case was in its early stages with no trial date set, and because the petition was a "me-too" filing seeking joinder, its institution would not independently impact the court proceedings beyond the impact of the original Apple IPR.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’502 patent as unpatentable.