BOE Technology Group Co Ltd v. Optronic Sciences LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01134
• Patent #: 9,406,733
• Filed: July 5, 2024
• Petitioner(s): BOE Technology Group Co., LTD.
• Patent Owner(s): Optronic Sciences LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-5

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Pixel Structure
• Brief Description: The ’733 patent is directed to an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) pixel structure designed to improve luminous uniformity. The purported novelty is the inclusion of an "auxiliary electrode" disposed at a side of the light-emitting device and electrically connected to the device's first electrode layer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claim 1 by Hekmatshoar

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hekmatshoar ("A novel TFT-OLED integration for OLED-independent pixel programming in amorphous-Si AMOLED pixels," 2008).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hekmatshoar, a journal article describing a new "inverted" AMOLED pixel structure, discloses every limitation of claim 1. Specifically, Petitioner contended that Hekmatshoar’s pixel circuit is identical to the one disclosed in the ’733 patent. The "Interconnect" structure in Hekmatshoar, which connects the driver transistor to the OLED cathode and is disposed on the first electrode layer (ITO-anode), was asserted to be the claimed "auxiliary electrode." Petitioner argued Hekmatshoar’s "Interconnect" is supplemental, electrically insulated from the active device by nitride and passivation layers, disposed at a side of the OLED, and connected to the first electrode layer, thus meeting all limitations of element [1g].

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-5 over Lee in view of Hekmatshoar or Weaver

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2009/0015149) in view of Hekmatshoar or Weaver (Application # 2004/0079945).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lee discloses a basic OLED pixel with an organic electroluminescent layer between two electrodes and a thin-film transistor (TFT). However, Lee does not explicitly disclose the complete line configuration (e.g., data and scan lines) needed to operate the pixel in a video display. Hekmatshoar and Weaver both expressly teach this standard line configuration for operating analogous OLED devices. Petitioner argued that Lee’s "electrode pattern 45," which is formed on the first electrode and insulated from the active device, constitutes the claimed "auxiliary electrode." This "electrode pattern 45" is disclosed as serving to lower the resistance of the first electrode, satisfying even a narrow construction of the term.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Lee with Hekmatshoar or Weaver to implement a known and necessary electrical line configuration to operate Lee's disclosed pixel in a video display, which is a stated use for Lee's device. The combination would have been a predictable implementation of standard pixel-driving circuitry.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because all three references are in the analogous field of OLED display technology, and the proposed modification involves applying a conventional operating circuit to a pixel structure, which is a routine design choice.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 1 over Hekmatshoar in view of Gupta or Han

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hekmatshoar in view of Gupta (Patent 9,088,003) or Han (Application # 2011/0248309).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the assertion that Hekmatshoar discloses the physical structure of claim 1. However, Hekmatshoar does not explicitly state that its "Interconnect" (the auxiliary electrode) reduces the total resistance of the pixel structure. Gupta and Han directly address the known problem of high sheet resistance in OLED electrodes (like ITO, used in Hekmatshoar) causing IR-drop and high power consumption. Both Gupta and Han teach the solution of adding a supplemental, parallel conductive path or electrode (Gupta's "resistor 238," Han's "subsidiary electrodes") to the primary electrode to reduce its overall resistance.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hekmatshoar’s pixel by applying the explicit resistance-reduction teaching from Gupta or Han. Hekmatshoar’s use of ITO for its anode would have alerted a POSITA to the potential for high resistance, making the solutions in Gupta and Han directly applicable to improve the performance and uniformity of Hekmatshoar’s device.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in applying this modification, as it involved implementing a known electrical principle (a parallel circuit to reduce resistance) to solve a well-understood problem in the same technical field, yielding predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "auxiliary electrode" (claims 1-2, 4-5): Petitioner proposed two alternative constructions.
  • A broad construction of "supplemental electrode," which Petitioner argued is supported by the plain meaning and used for its Ground 1 anticipation argument.
  • A narrower construction of "supplemental electrode to reduce the total resistance of the pixel structure," derived from statements in the patent’s specification. Petitioner argued its obviousness grounds (Grounds 2 and 3) succeed even under this narrower construction.
• "disposed at a side of" (claims 1, 4): Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean "overlaps in the horizontal direction." This construction was argued to be necessary because a construction precluding any vertical overlap would read out all disclosed embodiments of the ’733 patent, where the auxiliary electrode partially overlaps the first electrode layer vertically.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is not warranted. The key factors weighing against denial included: no trial date has been set in the parallel district court litigation; the IPR addresses more claims (claims 1-5) than the litigation, where the complaint explicitly asserts only claim 1; and this is the first post-issuance challenge to the ’733 patent. Petitioner also argued under §325(d) that the challenges are not substantially the same as those considered during prosecution and that the petition has compelling merits.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’733 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or §103.