PTAB

IPR2021-00661

Satco Products Inc v. Regents Of University Of California

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Light Emitting Diode Structure
  • Brief Description: The ’557 patent discloses a light-emitting device (LED) comprising a plurality of III-nitride LEDs mounted on a sapphire plate. The device features a cathode on a first end of the sapphire plate and an anode on a second end, wherein both the cathode and anode provide structural support to the plate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nakamura-959 and Nakamura-949 - Claims 1-2 are obvious over Nakamura-959 in view of Nakamura-949.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura-959 (Application # 2008/0149959) and Nakamura-949 (Application # 2008/0149949).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nakamura-959, as the first utility publication in the ’557 patent’s family, discloses nearly every limitation of the challenged claims. This includes a light-emitting device with III-nitride layers, a sapphire plate, and molding with phosphor. However, Nakamura-959 discloses a lead frame where only one lead provides structural support. Petitioner asserted that Nakamura-949, which is incorporated by reference into Nakamura-959, explicitly teaches the missing element: a lead frame where both an anode and a cathode provide structural support to a transparent plate.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) reading Nakamura-959 would be aware of the incorporated Nakamura-949 disclosure. A POSITA would combine the device of Nakamura-959 with the supportive dual-lead frame of Nakamura-949 because it represented a simple and predictable substitution of one known lead frame design for another to achieve the same function of electrically connecting the LED to external structures.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because combining the lead frames involved routine techniques and both lead frame types provided predictable functionality for connecting an LED.

Ground 2: Anticipation and Obviousness over Tanda - Claim 1 is anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over Tanda.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tanda (Application # 2007/0139949).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Tanda discloses every limitation of claim 1. Tanda describes a light-emitting device with a transparent board that may be sapphire. Metal plates (anode and cathode) are fastened to opposite ends of this board, providing structural support. Tanda further discloses using multiple III-nitride LEDs grown on sapphire substrates, which are in mechanical communication with the sapphire plate. Finally, Tanda teaches embedding the LED in a molding that comprises a phosphor and is configured to extract light from all sides of the device.
    • Motivation to Combine (for obviousness): In the alternative, Petitioner argued it was obvious to use multiple III-nitride LEDs in Tanda’s device, as Tanda expressly suggests this modification to increase light output.
    • Expectation of Success: Tanda’s own disclosure provides the roadmap for any necessary combinations, ensuring an expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Yamazaki, Schubert-2003, and Minato - Claim 1 is obvious over Yamazaki in view of Schubert-2003 and Minato.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yamazaki (Japanese Application # 2003-249692A), Schubert-2003 (a 2003 textbook, Light-Emitting Diodes), and Minato (Japanese Application # 2001-126515A).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Yamazaki discloses an LED package with anode and cathode leads on either end of a transparent chip substrate (which can be sapphire), where the leads wrap around and structurally support the substrate. The device is surrounded by a molding that can contain phosphor and extracts light from both sides.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement Yamazaki’s device using conventional III-nitride LEDs on sapphire growth substrates, as taught by Schubert-2003, which describes this as the primary system for commercially available blue LEDs. Furthermore, while Yamazaki discloses a single LED, Minato demonstrates that using multiple LEDs was a known and obvious design choice to increase light output. A POSITA would combine these references to create a brighter, more efficient version of Yamazaki’s device using standard, commercially available components.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known design options (multiple LEDs) and conventional components (III-nitride LEDs on sapphire) to an existing device structure, which would have been a predictable and successful endeavor.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 1 is also obvious over the combination of Yamazaki, Schubert-2003, and Minato, further in view of Uemura (Patent 6,310,364), Han (Korean Patent # 10-0626365), or Feldman (Patent 6,666,567). Petitioner also challenged claim 2 (requiring a patterned sapphire substrate) as obvious over the combinations in Grounds 2, 3, and 4 in further view of Tadatomo (a 2004 SPIE publication).

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Broken Priority Chain: A central contention is that the ’557 patent is not entitled to its claimed 2006 priority date and its effective filing date is instead its actual filing date of September 12, 2019. Petitioner argued that the key "cathode and anode provide structural support" limitation was added during prosecution of a parent application. The patentee improperly relied on incorporation by reference from a provisional application to provide written description support for this essential material, which violates 37 C.F.R. 1.57. This alleged break in the priority chain makes references published after 2006, such as Nakamura-959 and Nakamura-949, available as prior art under the AIA.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv. It asserted that a parallel district court case (EDNY) was effectively stayed in October 2020 and that validity is not currently at issue in that litigation. Furthermore, it noted that related ITC decisions lack collateral estoppel effect. Petitioner contended that because the PTAB had already instituted inter partes reviews (IPRs) against related patents and Petitioner was filing IPRs contemporaneously against the entire family, the PTAB was the most efficient and expert forum for resolving the overlapping invalidity issues.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-2 of the ’557 patent as unpatentable.