Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01356/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01356-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Regents of the University of California
Appellant
Satco Products, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Appellant

v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1356

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00662.

______________________ 

Decided: December 4, 2024

______________________ 

SHAWN G. HANSEN, Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles, 

CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by JENNIFER 

HAYES, SETH D. LEVY; ANGELO CHRISTOPHER, Chicago, IL. 

 NICHOLAS A. BROWN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

KATHRYN ALBANESE, SCOTT JOSEPH BORNSTEIN, BRIAN 

JOSEPH PREW, New York, NY; HEATH BRIGGS, Denver, CO;

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

2

STEPHEN ULLMER, Portland, OR; ROBERT P. LYNN, JR., 

Lynn Gartner Dunne & Frigenti, LLP, Mineola, NY. 

 ______________________ 

Before DYK and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,

District Judge.1

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

Appellee Satco Products, Inc. (“Satco”) successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1 and 2 of 

U.S. Patent No. 10,644,213, owned by Appellant Regents of 

the University of California (the “Regents”). The Regents 

appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written 

Decision holding claims 1 and 2 unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the reasons that follow, 

we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.

BACKGROUND

As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, 

we recite here only those facts necessary to frame and decide the issues presented on appeal.

I 

The ’213 patent, titled “Filament LED Light Bulb,” is 

directed to:

A transparent light emitting diode (LED) [that] includes a plurality of III-nitride layers, including an 

active region that emits light, wherein all of the 

layers except for the active region are transparent 

for an emission wavelength of the light, such that 

the light is extracted effectively through all of the 

layers and in multiple directions through the 

1 Honorable John F. Murphy, District Judge, United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

3

layers. Moreover, the surface of one or more of the 

III-nitride layers may be roughened, textured, patterned or shaped to enhance light extraction.

U.S. Patent No. 10,644,213 Abstract. Independent claim 1 

and dependent claim 2 of the ’213 patent recite the following: 

1. A light bulb, comprising at least one light emitting device, the at least one light emitting device 

each further comprising:

a sapphire plate, a cathode on a first end of the sapphire plate and an anode on a second end of the 

sapphire plate, wherein the cathode and anode 

provide structural support to the sapphire plate

[the “cathode/anode limitation”] and are adapted 

to provide an electrical connection between the 

light emitting device and a structure outside the 

light emitting device;

at least one III-nitride light emitting diode (LED) 

comprising a sapphire growth substrate [the “sapphire growth substrate limitation”], the sapphire 

growth substrate in mechanical communication 

with the sapphire plate, and the LED and sapphire plate configured to extract light emitted by 

the LED through the sapphire plate; and

a molding comprising a phosphor and surrounding 

the LED, the molding configured to extract light 

from both a front side of the light emitting device 

and a back side of the light emitting device.

2. The light bulb of claim 1, wherein the sapphire 

growth substrate is a patterned sapphire substrate 

(PSS).

’213 patent cols. 21–22 (insertions and emphasis added to 

highlight disputed limitations). 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

4

II

In its Final Written Decision, the Board concluded that 

Satco showed by preponderant evidence that “claims 1 

and 2 of the ’213 patent would have been obvious, respectively, over the combined disclosures of Yamazaki and 

Schubert, and the combined disclosures of Yamazaki, 

Schubert, and Tadamoto.” J.A. 24.

Yamazaki is a Japanese patent publication titled “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device.” J.A. 36; J.A. 1132. 

Schubert (or “Schubert-2003”) is a book published in 2003 

titled “Light-Emitting Diodes” and authored by Dr. E. Fred 

Schubert, the Regents’ expert. J.A. 37; J.A. 1139. Tadatomo is an article titled “High Output Power Near-Ultraviolet and Violet Light-Emitting Diodes Fabricated on 

Patterned Sapphire Substrates Using Metalorganic Vapor 

Phase Epitaxy.” J.A. 38; J.A. 1508.

In post-Institution briefing, the parties disagreed over 

whether the term “phosphor,” as recited in the final limitation of claim 1 above, includes “fluorescent material.” 

J.A. 25. In its Petition, Satco asserted that Yamazaki discloses the claim 1 limitation “a molding comprising a phosphor,” explaining that Yamazaki uses the word “phosphor” 

when discussing the transparent resin of the light-emitting 

device. The Regents responded that the official translation 

of Yamazaki does not use the word “phosphor” and instead 

uses the words “fluorescent material.” Satco replied, conceding that the quotation of Yamazaki in its Petition was 

an inadvertent error, and that it was from “a version of 

Yamazaki that was produced in related [International 

Trade Commission] cases.” J.A. 27 (quoting J.A. 695). The 

Board ultimately construed “phosphor” to include “fluorescent material.” 

The object of the invention disclosed in Yamazaki “is to 

provide a semiconductor light-emitting device that emits 

light in a plurality of directions through a simple structure.” J.A. 1132. Figure 1 of Yamazaki, described as a 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

5

“schematic cross-sectional drawing depicting one embodiment of a semiconductor light-emitting device according to 

the present invention,” J.A. 1136, is relevant on appeal: 

J.A. 1137, Fig. 1. “The chip substrate 11 is structured as a 

flat chip substrate . . . and an electrically conductive pattern 11a is provided on the surface thereof.” J.A. 1135 

¶ 26.

Relying on Figure 1, the Board found that Yamazaki 

teaches the cathode/anode limitation of claim 1. The Board 

observed that, in Yamazaki’s Figure 1, “the lines depicting

[elements] 11a are bolded—the only bolded feature shown 

in any of the four figures of Yamazaki—in such a way as to 

appear to emphasize the wrap-around nature of the pattern.” J.A. 42. The Board did “not agree with [the Regents] 

that Figures 2 and 3 would lead a person of ordinary skill 

in the art to ignore the plain disclosure of Figure 1.” Id. 

The Board acknowledged that “Yamazaki’s figures do not 

define the precise proportions of the elements” but nonetheless “note[d] that Yamazaki emphasizes elements 11a 

in bold, indicating the elements’ thickness relative to other 

portions of Figure 1.” J.A. 45. Because, as the Board explained, “Figure 1 emphasizes the thickness of element 11a 

in relation to chip 11,” the Board found, inter alia, that “a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood

Yamazaki to teach the use of relatively thick j-lead metal 

leads that provided structural support.” Id.

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

6

The Board also determined that Satco “establishe[d] by 

a preponderance of the evidence that an ordinarily skilled 

artisan would have found the sapphire growth substrate 

[limitation] obvious in light of Yamazaki’s disclosure.” 

J.A. 48–49. The Board explained that because Satco “cites 

Schubert to provide evidence of what a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would understand Yamazaki’s disclosure to 

teach,” J.A. 50—that “conventional blue LEDs were 

III-nitride-based LEDs that commonly included sapphire 

growth substrates,” J.A. 49 (quoting J.A. 257–58)—

Satco did not need to “demonstrate a sufficient motivation 

to combine the two references.” J.A. 50 (quoting Realtime 

Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 

2019)). 

With respect to claim 2, the Board found that “the combination of Yamazaki, Schubert, and Tadatomo teaches 

each limitation . . . and that an ordinarily skilled artisan 

would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to 

combine the references, and the skilled artisan would have

had a reasonable expectation of success.” J.A. 54.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board also denied the

Regents’ motion to exclude certain portions of Dr. Schubert’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b), 

which provides that “[c]ross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s credibility.” 

The Regents appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

Our court reviews “the Board’s obviousness determination de novo, but its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick 

Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “The substantial evidence standard asks ‘whether a reasonable fact 

finder could have arrived at the agency’s decision,’ and 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 6 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

7

‘involves examination of the record as a whole, taking into 

account evidence that both justifies and detracts from an 

agency’s decision.’” TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 

942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). What a reference teaches is a question of fact. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker 

Corp., 608 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We review 

whether an agency action complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., de novo. Pfizer 

Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 94 F.4th 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 

2024). “Claim construction is ultimately a question of law, 

decided de novo on review . . . [b]ut we review any underlying fact findings about extrinsic evidence . . . for substantial-evidence support when the appeal comes from the 

Board.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 808 

(Fed. Cir. 2021). Finally, we review “evidentiary rulings 

under the abuse of discretion standard.” Bosch Auto. Serv. 

Sols., LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

I 

We begin with the Regents’ argument that the Board 

erroneously found that Yamazaki discloses the cathode/anode limitation based on its purported teaching “of relatively 

thick j-lead metal leads.” Appellant’s Br. 38 (emphasis 

omitted) (quoting J.A. 45). For the following reasons, we 

agree with the Regents in this respect.

As noted above, in reaching its fact finding about 

whether Yamazaki discloses the cathode/anode limitation, 

the Board agreed with Satco that element 11a represents a 

j-lead supporting the substrate rather than depositing/etching, as urged by the Regents. Specifically, the 

Board explained that “Figure 1 emphasizes the thickness 

of element 11a” in “bold,” and thus “a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would have understood Yamazaki to teach 

the use of relatively thick j-lead metal leads that provided 

structural support.” J.A. 45. The Board accordingly rejected the Regents’ argument that the electrically 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 7 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

8

conductive patterns 11a would have been understood by a 

person of ordinary skill in the art to have been deposited or 

etched. 

As we have previously explained, patent drawings may 

be useful in shedding light about the general shapes and 

relative sizes of elements of the claimed invention, as well 

as their spatial relations to one another. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., 685 F. App’x 951, 954 (Fed. Cir. 

2017) (discussing the layout of elements in a patent drawing); Monterey Rsch., LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 

Nos. 2022-1411 & -1770, 2023 WL 7037383, at *3 

(Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2023) (finding no error in Board’s reliance on patent drawings for the “general shapes of the 

claimed active regions”). It is “well established,” however,

“that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions 

of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular 

sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” 

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 

222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In other words, “figures 

in a patent are not drawn to scale unless otherwise indicated.” Id. “[A]rguments based on drawings not explicitly 

made to scale in issued patents” are thus “unavailing.” 

Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 

2005). Here, nothing in the Yamazaki reference indicates

that its figures are drawn to scale. See J.A. 1132–37. 

We think that this is not a case in which the boldness

of certain lines can be read as disclosing relative thickness, 

since the figures could just as well demonstrate only the 

existence of a separate structure. See, e.g., Prima Tek II, 

LLC v. Polypap, SARL, 412 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (discussing structural features disclosed by patent 

drawing). There is other evidence as well that the bolded 

lines do not show relative proportions. As shown above, 

Yamazaki’s Figure 1 depicts conductive pattern 11a as 

having the same or similar thickness as adhesive

layer 11b. The specification describes adhesive layer 11b 

in Figure 1 as follows: 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 8 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

9

[A]fter a transparent adhesive agent [11b] is 

coated in the vicinity of the center of the chip 

mounting region 11c of the surface of the chip substrate 11, the light-emitting chip 12 is placed on 

the chip mounting region 11c. Given this, the lightemitting chip 12 is pressed against the surface of 

the chip substrate 11, to cause the transparent adhesive to be pushed out and spread thinly . . . . 

J.A. 1135 ¶ 31 (emphasis added); see J.A. 1135 ¶ 26. That 

the drawing of conductive pattern 11a has approximately 

the same thickness as a thinly spread transparent adhesive 11b reinforces that Figure 1 is not drawn to scale. 

Dr. Schubert explained, unrebutted, that “[i]n real applications,” the “adhesive between the LED chip and supporting 

substrate would be approximately 1 micron to 10 microns 

thick.” J.A. 9781 ¶ 181. Logically, Yamazaki’s figures are 

drawn to illustrate the LED semiconductor chip’s layers 

and their arrangement. If they were drawn to scale and 

disclosed relative proportions, one would hardly be able to 

see at least some of the layers. Satco provides no response 

to this point on appeal.

The Board’s improper reliance on the figures is not necessarily fatal to its ultimate conclusion that Figure 1 shows 

j-leads, not depositing/etching. We acknowledge, as the 

Board did, that Satco and its expert Dr. Russell Dupuis relied on additional facts to support a finding that Yamazaki’s element 11a provides structural support. See

J.A. 39. Dr. Dupuis testified that “F[igure] 1 of Yamazaki 

depicts metallic portions that are thick in relation to the 

plate, cover portions of the top and bottom of the plate, and 

wrap around opposite edges, all of which show that the 

leads provide structural support to the plate.” J.A. 6663–

64 ¶ 246. We cannot, however, separate out the Board’s 

reliance on what it perceived as “elements’ [11a] thickness 

relative to other portions of Figure 1” from its finding regarding element 11a’s provision of structural support. 

J.A. 45. Indeed, the Board seems to have relied primarily 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 9 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

10

on the thickness of the bold lines depicting elements 11a in 

Figure 1 to find that “a person of ordinary skill in the art 

would have understood Yamazaki to teach the use of relatively thick j-lead metal leads that provided structural support.” Id. Under our court’s precedent, because Yamazaki 

is not drawn to scale and does not show relative proportions, the Board erred by relying on the bold lines in Figure 1 to make findings regarding the thickness of (and thus 

the structural support provided by) element 11a.

For the reasons explained above, we vacate the Board’s 

decision with respect to the cathode/anode limitation and 

remand for the Board to assess whether Yamazaki teaches 

the cathode/anode limitation of claim 1 without reliance on 

the relative thickness of the bolded lines in Yamazaki’s Figure 1. 

II

Having addressed independent claim 1’s cathode/anode limitation, we now turn to the other issues raised by 

the Regents, including claim 1’s limitation containing the 

term “phosphor,” claim 1’s sapphire growth substrate limitation, and dependent claim 2.

The Regents argue that the Board erred in finding that 

Yamazaki teaches claim 1’s limitation containing the term 

“phosphor” because: (1) it improperly allowed new argument and evidence in Satco’s reply, (2) its sua sponte construction of “phosphor” is improper and not supported by 

substantial evidence, and (3) it improperly refused to exclude impermissible cross-examination testimony. None of 

these arguments persuades us. First, we agree with the 

Board that Satco’s reply concerning the translation of 

Yamazaki was responsive to the Regents’ arguments and 

thus properly considered under Board’s rules. Second, the 

Regents had multiple opportunities to discuss whether the 

ordinary meaning of “phosphor” includes “fluorescent material,” and substantial evidence in the form of prior art patents supports the Board’s fact finding regarding the 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 10 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

11

ordinary meaning of “phosphor” at the time of the invention. As such, we agree with the Board’s analysis and 

adopt its construction of “phosphor.” Third, the expert testimony that the Regents sought to exclude was properly 

within the scope of cross-examination because it had a sufficient underlying basis in the direct testimony provided in 

the witness’s declaration. 

Turning to the next limitation at issue, the Regents argue that the Board erred in finding that Yamazaki teaches 

claim 1’s sapphire growth substrate limitation because: (1) Schubert-2003 does not disclose the use of IIInitride based LEDs including sapphire growth substrates, 

and (2) Satco expressly relied on Schubert-2003 as teaching the sapphire growth substrate limitation and thus 

Satco needed to demonstrate a sufficient motivation to 

combine the two references. Again, we are unpersuaded. 

First, Dr. Dupuis testified that “III-nitride LEDs are often 

described . . . by referring to the semiconductor layers of 

the LED . . . such as ‘GaN’ [(gallium nitride)],” J.A. 6587 

¶ 83, and Schubert-2003 explains, among other things,

that the “first GaN” LED, which emitted light in the ultraviolet and blue spectral range, “was grown on a sapphire 

substrate.” J.A. 1164; J.A. 1314 (describing sapphire substrate as “commonly used”). Second, the Board was correct 

in stating that Satco relied on “Schubert to provide evidence of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand Yamazaki’s disclosure to teach,” not as a secondary reference relied on for a proposed modification of 

Yamazaki. J.A. 50.

We need not reach the Regents’ final argument that the 

Board erred in finding dependent claim 2 obvious over 

Yamazaki, Schubert, and Tadatomo because we vacate and 

remand the Board’s decision with respect to the cathode/anode limitation, which is incorporated into dependent 

claim 2. 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 11 Filed: 12/04/2024
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

12

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Board 

erred in relying on the relative thickness of conductive pattern 11a in Yamazaki’s Figure 1 to find that Yamazaki 

teaches the cathode/anode limitation of claim 1 of the 

’213 patent. We conclude that the Board did not err in its 

analysis of claim 1’s limitation containing the term “phosphor” or claim 1’s sapphire growth substrate limitation. 

We thus affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 23-1356 Document: 41 Page: 12 Filed: 12/04/2024