BOE Technology Group Co Ltd v. Optronic Sciences LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01132
• Patent #: 7,586,121
• Filed: July 12, 2024
• Petitioner(s): BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Optronic Sciences LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-7

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Electroluminescence Device and Method of Fabricating the Same
• Brief Description: The ’121 patent discloses an Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) device designed to increase storage capacitance without expanding pixel area. The invention achieves this by forming two capacitors vertically stacked over one another within each pixel, sharing a common electrode, a configuration sometimes referred to as a tri-plate capacitor.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-3 and 5 under §102 by Anzai

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Anzai (Patent 7,330,168)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anzai, which is directed to improving display quality in EL devices by modifying storage capacitors, discloses every limitation of claims 1-3 and 5. For independent claim 1, Petitioner mapped Anzai’s disclosure of an EL device with pixels divided into a capacitor area, a transistor area, and an OLED area. Anzai’s capacitor area allegedly teaches a first capacitor (electrode 54, insulating film 15, electrode 70) and a second capacitor (electrode 70, planarization films 17/19, cathode layer 65) that are vertically stacked and share a common second conductive layer (electrode 70). Anzai’s transistor area was mapped to the claimed transistor, and its organic EL element was mapped to the claimed light-emitting device. Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 were also allegedly disclosed, with Anzai's drain electrode 36 meeting the contact layer of claim 2, its planarization films 17 and 19 meeting the passivation and capping layers of claim 3, and its teaching of ITO for both the anode and another electrode layer meeting the material requirement of claim 5.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 4 under §103 over Anzai in view of Yamazaki

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Anzai (Patent 7,330,168), Yamazaki (Patent 6,992,332)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Anzai teaches all limitations of claim 3, which requires a passivation layer and a capping layer, but does not explicitly state that these layers are made of silicon nitride as required by dependent claim 4. Yamazaki, an analogous art concerning active-matrix light-emitting devices, was introduced because it expressly teaches that an insulation layer, which serves a similar planarizing and passivating function to Anzai’s layers 17 and 19, can be made of silicon nitride.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking a suitable material for the insulating planarization layers in Anzai’s device, would combine Anzai with Yamazaki. The motivation arose from Yamazaki’s teaching that silicon nitride is an effective material for insulating and planarizing layers in a similar OLED device structure. Furthermore, Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to use an inorganic material like silicon nitride over an organic resin (mentioned in Anzai) to achieve a higher dielectric constant, which increases capacitance and helps achieve Anzai's goal of reducing the storage capacitor's forming area.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references relate to OLED device fabrication, and using silicon nitride as an insulator was a known and predictable technique.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-7 under §103 over Yamazaki in view of Anzai

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yamazaki (Patent 6,992,332), Anzai (Patent 7,330,168)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yamazaki, as the primary reference, discloses an OLED device with most elements of claim 1 but lacks the specific two-capacitor structure where the second capacitor uses the EL device’s cathode as an electrode. Yamazaki discloses a first capacitor (between electrodes 43 and 46) but does not teach a second capacitor formed between electrode 46 and the cathode (electrode 32). Anzai was introduced to supply this missing element, as it explicitly teaches extending the cathode layer over the capacitor area to form a second capacitor, thereby increasing total capacitance.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Yamazaki with Anzai to increase the storage capacitance in Yamazaki's pixel circuit, a well-known objective in the field. Anzai provides a clear, space-saving solution by using the existing cathode layer to form an additional capacitor. This modification would be a predictable way to improve the performance of Yamazaki’s device without significantly altering the manufacturing process. The combination allegedly renders claims 1-7 obvious, with Anzai’s teachings also providing the basis for the specific dielectric layer compositions recited in dependent claims 3, 4, 6, and 7.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination involves applying a known capacitance-boosting technique from one OLED device (Anzai) to another, analogous OLED device (Yamazaki). The methods for forming these layers were well-established, leading to predictable results.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is not warranted. The petition asserted that no trial date has been set in the parallel district court litigation, the IPR addresses more claims than the litigation complaint, and the merits of the petition are compelling.
• Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the asserted prior art combinations and arguments are not substantially the same as those considered by the examiner during prosecution of the ’121 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’121 patent as unpatentable.