Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05038/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05038-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENPLAS DISPLAY DEVICE 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR 

COMPANY, LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No.13-cv-05038 NC 

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY OF 

’554 PATENT

Re: Dkt. No. 164

Enplas moves for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’554 patent. Because the 

Court finds that there is a dispute of material fact, the Court DENIES the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The ’554 Patent

The ’554 patent (No. 6,473,554) is entitled Lighting Apparatus Having Low Profile. 

The patent discloses “a low profile lighting apparatus that is particularly advantageous for 

use as a backlight for illuminating a display.” These backlights may be used to illuminate 

analog watches, automobile gauges, and liquid crystal displays (LCDs) used with cell 

phones, pagers, and PDAs. The invention described in the patent is intended to fill the 

need for a backlight that “provides a substantially uniform illumination profile across the 

entire area of illumination.” Patent 1:43-45. 

/

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 8
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Stanley Patent

The Stanley patent is a Japanese patent, entitled “Light Emitted Diode.” The patent 

solves the problem that “even if a plurality of LEDs are arranged and lighted in order to 

display in a matrix form, each is separately observed so that display quality is 

deteriorated.” The patent uses a resin housing to improve the luminous quality of the 

LED.

C. Johnson Patent

The Johnson patent (No. 3,774,021) is entitled, “Light Emitting Device.” The 

patent discloses “A light emitting diode module with a dome encapsulant in which the 

geometry is designed to maximize the light output in the plane of junction.” The patent 

solves the problem of illuminating discrete regions of a relatively large area.

D. Procedural History

Enplas brings this declaratory judgment action, alleging non-infringement of the 

’209 and ’554 patents, invalidity of both patents as anticipated, and a defense of 

inequitable conduct, among others. SSC alleges that certain Enplas lenses infringe the 

’554 patent and that Enplas’ LCD screens infringe the ’209 patent. Shortly after the fact 

discovery cutoff, Enplas moved for summary judgment of non-infringement on some of 

the ’554 patent claims because SSC indicated that it would not pursue those claims. SSC 

covenanted not to sue on the claims, but the Court found that Enplas was entitled to 

summary judgment of non-infringement as to those claims. Dkt. No. 282. 

Enplas now moves for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that there is no 

dispute of fact that Enplas can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Stanley and 

Johnson patents anticipate all claims of the ’554 patent. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment may be granted only when, drawing all inferences and 

resolving all doubts in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014); 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 8
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if “the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. 

Bald assertions that genuine issues of material fact exist are insufficient. Galen v. Cnty. of 

L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007).

The moving party bears the burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, 

discovery, and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving 

party must go beyond the pleadings, and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth 

specific facts showing that a genuine issue of fact exists for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); 

Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Steckl v. 

Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983)). All justifiable inferences, however, 

must be drawn in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Tolan, 134 S. Ct. at 

1863 (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255). 

III. DISCUSSION

Enplas moves for summary judgment of invalidity on claims 1, 2, 30, 31, 33-39, 41-

43, 45-48 of the ’554 patent, arguing that there is not a material dispute of fact that the 

’554 patent is anticipated by the Stanley and/or Johnson patents. The Court first addresses 

the deficiencies of Enplas’ motion.

A. Enplas’ Motion

Enplas’ motion asks the Court to find that there is no dispute of material fact that 

the ’554 patent is invalid as anticipated by the Johnson and Stanley patents. As a 

preliminary matter, the Court finds that Enplas’ motion is lacking for two reasons.

First, Enplas’ motion only briefly explains its invalidity analysis, and instead, asks 

the Court to refer to Dr. Pollock’s claim chart for a fully detailed analysis as to why the 

prior art anticipates the ’554 patent. Dr. Pollock’s claim chart is 117 pages for its analysis 

of the Stanley patent, and 55 pages for its analysis of the Johnson patent. Local Rule 7-2 

provides that motions are not to exceed 25 pages of argument.

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 8
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court will not sift through the additional 172 pages of argument from Enplas to 

evaluate its summary judgment argument. See AAT Bioquest, Inc. v. Texas Fluorescence 

Labs., Inc., No. 14-cv-03909 DMR, 2015 WL 1738402, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2015) 

(“It is not the court’s task to pan through these exhibits in an effort to discover TEFLabs’s 

argument.”); Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 12-cv-1971 CW, 2014 WL 

3883437, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) (“Adobe must explain its summary judgment 

arguments and cannot rely on the Court to sift through the countless exhibits to 

manufacture a summary judgment argument.”); Lockformer Co. v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 

99-cv-6799, 2003 WL 1563703, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2003) aff’d, 138 Fed. Appx. 

314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“It is not the Court’s task to search through the record to find 

evidence that supports PPG’s position.”).

Second, Enplas relies heavily on attorney argument and conclusory statements of 

the patent experts. SSC objects to Enplas’ use of attorney argument, and in response, 

Enplas argues that the Court can compare the patents on its own to determine anticipation. 

While the Court is not required to rely on expert testimony, evidence of invalidity should 

be supported by testimony from one skilled in the art, and “must identify each claim 

element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how 

each claim element in disclosed in the prior art reference.” Schumer v. Lab. Comp. Sys., 

Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “It is not the trial judge’s burden to search 

through lengthy technologic documents for possible evidence,” and conclusory statements 

of a patent’s invalidity are insufficient. Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & 

Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

In this case, the Court finds that a comparison of the patents does not lead to a selfevident conclusion of anticipation without further detailed analysis and expert testimony. 

Therefore, the Court only briefly considers whether SSC has submitted evidence 

that it could defeat Enplas’ invalidity claims. 

//

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 8
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Invalidity Legal Standard

Generally, a patent is presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. While this presumption 

can be rebutted, the party challenging validity must meet the “high burden” of proving 

invalidity by “clear and convincing evidence.” Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 

1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[A] moving party seeking to invalidate a patent at summary 

judgment must submit such clear and convincing evidence of invalidity so that no 

reasonable jury could find otherwise.” Eli Lilly v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 962 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Generally, the invalidity argument of 

anticipation, which attacks the novelty of the patent-in-suit, is a question of fact. Finnigan 

Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Enplas argues that the ’554 patent is invalid under the theory of anticipation. If the 

claimed invention was “described in a printed publication” either before the date of 

invention, or more than one year before the U.S. patent application was filed, then that 

prior art anticipates the patent, rendering it invalid and unenforceable. 35 U.S.C. § 102 

(a)-(b). The anticipation inquiry proceeds on a claim-by-claim basis. Finisar Corp. v. 

DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Court must first construe 

the claims, then the fact finder must compare the construed claims to the prior art. Key 

Pharms. v. Hereon Labs Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “To anticipate a 

claim, a single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim 

limitation” arranged as in the claim. Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1334.

The parties do not dispute that the Stanley and Johnson patents constitute prior art, 

and the Court has already done the claim construction for the ’554 patent. Therefore, the 

Court considers whether Stanley or Johnson anticipate any of the claims of the ’554 patent. 

Here, the independent claims are claims 1, 30, and 38. All other claims are dependent on 

these three, so the Court considers the three independent claims.

///

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 8
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

C. Claim 1

Claim 1 reads:

An illumination device, comprising: a waveguide having an

illumination coupler embedded in an interior region of said 

waveguide, said illumination coupler adapted to receive light 

from a point source within said interior region, and to direct 

light between generally parallel top and bottom surfaces 

outside said interior region, said illumination coupler 

comprising a refractive index interface which is inclined 

relative to at least one of said top and bottom surfaces, said 

interface being configured to reflect light rays emitted by the 

point source which propagate along a line that forms less than 

the critical angle of total internal reflection with respect to a 

line lying in one of said top and bottom surfaces, such that light 

rays which would otherwise pass out of said waveguide are 

captured for propagation between said top and bottom surfaces.

Enplas argues that the Johnson patent anticipates claim 1. SSC responds that 

Enplas has not clearly identified the waveguide and illumination coupler in the Johnson 

patent. The Court construed the term waveguide to mean “an optical device that redirects 

light propagating between its surfaces.” Dkt. No. 81. The Court declined to construe the 

term: “illumination coupler embedded in an interior region of said waveguide.” Id.

According to SSC, “SSC’s technical expert, Dr. Moore, disputes that all or any 

portion of element 17 constitutes the claimed ‘illumination coupler.’ He explained at 

length that element 17 is not an illumination coupler because it lacks a bottom coupling 

lens element and a top TIR coupling element.” Dkt. No. 197 at 24.

The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the Johnson 

patent anticipates the ’554 patent on all elements of claim 1. Therefore, the Court does not 

need to reach the dependent claims. 

D. Claim 30

Claim 30 reads:

An optical apparatus, comprising: a light emitting diode 

(LED); an optical element having top and bottom opposing 

sides, said LED mounted at a predetermined location 

beneath a central portion of said optical element such that 

light from the LED enters the optical element, said optical 

element including a TIR surface spaced from said bottom side 

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 6 of 8
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and extending from a point above the LED outwardly towards 

said edges, said TIR surface positioned to receive light emitted 

by the LED, said TIR surface curving towards the LED so as to 

form a cusp above the LED, the curving TIR surface totally 

internally reflecting light rays such that reflected light rays 

propagate from the TIR surface towards the edge of the optical 

element.

Enplas argues that both Johnson and Stanley anticipate claim 30. First, SSC argues 

that Enplas misidentified the “optical element,” and as a result, Moore states that the LED 

is not mounted beneath the optical element (resin housing 3). Moore Rebuttal Report at 

56. SSC argues that Stanley does not have the LED beneath the central portion, instead it 

discloses an LED located within resin housing. Additionally, Stanley does not have an 

optical element, only a resin housing. Finally, SSC points to a dispute about where the 

“central portion” is. Dkt. No. 197 at 26 (citing Pollock Dep. 239).

SSC makes the same objections to the Johnson patent, and argues that Enplas’ 

belief that Dr. Moore (SSC’s expert) agreed with Enplas’ identification of the “central 

portion” is erroneous. The parties repeated this dispute at the motion hearing. According 

to SSC, the Johnson patent also does not disclose that the LEDs be centrally located 

because LEDs are mounted on left and right of the central portion. 

The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the Johnson 

patent anticipates the ’554 patent on all elements of claim 30. Therefore, the Court does 

not need to reach the dependent claims. 

E. Claim 38

Claim 38 reads:

An optical apparatus, comprising: a light emitting diode 

(LED); an optical element positioned to receive light from the 

light emitting diode, said element comprised of a refractive 

index interface having a curved shape that is symmetrical about 

an axis and converges to a location in a central portion of the

said interface being shaped and positioned relative to said LED 

to reflect a substantial portion of light from said LED in a 

direction transverse to said axis. 

Claim 38 itself is no longer at issue in this lawsuit, but the dependent claims that 

rely on the text of claim 38 are in the lawsuit. The Court considers claim 38 because it is 

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 7 of 8
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

necessary to the determination of claims 39-48. 

According to SSC, Enplas reads “a substantial portion of light” to mean “all light.” 

SSC argues it should be construed as “a large portion that is less than all the light such that 

dark spots are avoided.” Dkt. No. 197 at 16. SSC argues that there is a genuine dispute of 

fact as to whether Johnson discloses a leaky TIR as required by the patent. 

The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the Johnson 

patent anticipates the ’554 patent on all elements of claim 38. Therefore, the Court does 

not need to reach the dependent claims. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Enplas has not established that there is no genuine dispute of 

fact, nor has it proven by clear and convincing evidence that the ’554 patent must be found 

invalid as anticipated. The Court DENIES Enplas’ motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 332 Filed 02/11/16 Page 8 of 8