NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Appellant

v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1106, 2022-1107, 2022-1108, 2022-1109

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

00579, IPR2020-00695, IPR2020-00780, IPR2020-00813.

______________________ 

Decided: May 16, 2023 

______________________ 

JENNIFER HAYES, Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles, 

CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by SHAWN G.

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

 NICHOLAS A. BROWN, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

SCOTT JOSEPH BORNSTEIN, BRIAN JOSEPH PREW, New York, 

NY; HEATH BRIGGS, STEPHEN ULLMER, Denver, CO; 

ROBERT P. LYNN, JR., Lynn Gartner Dunne & Frigenti, 

LLP, Mineola, NY. 

Case: 22-1106 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 05/16/2023
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

2

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Regents of the University of California (Regents) 

timely appeals four decisions by the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (Board) determining that certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,781,789; 9,240,529; 9,859,464; and 

10,217,916 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 

103 over Japanese Patent Application No. 2005/035864

(Miyahara), alone and in combination with other references.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A). Because we adopt the Board’s construction 

of “lead frame,” we affirm.

The only issue before us on the Miyahara-based rejections is the construction of “lead frame.” We agree with the 

Board that “lead frame” means “a support structure for 

providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the 

lead frame structure, as a whole, provides support to the 

semiconductor die.” The parties agree, as they did in front 

of the Board, “that the transparent plate may be considered 

a part of the lead frame,” but disagree “whether the leads 

themselves must provide support to the LED chip.” J.A. 

54; Appellant’s Br. 37–39; Appellee’s Br. 14–19; Oral Arg. 

at 1:01–1:12. Specifically, Regents argues that a “lead 

frame” requires at least one of the leads to provide 

1 Although Regents raises other prior art references 

and multiple dependent claims on appeal, Appellant’s 

Br. 26–27, the parties agree that resolution of the claim 

construction issue with respect to the Miyahara-based rejections disposes of the entire appeal. Oral Arg. at 

9:53–10:28; 14:26–14:39; 16:21–16:31. See also Appellant’s 

Br. 51, 55–56, and 65. 

Case: 22-1106 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 05/16/2023
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. 

3

structural support to the LED chip and the support cannot 

come from the transparent plate alone. Appellant’s Br. 41–

42. We disagree and conclude that the term “lead frame” 

permits any part of the “lead frame,” including a transparent plate, to provide support to the LED chip. Nothing in 

the claims or specification of any of the four patents, nor in 

the extrinsic evidence, requires the leads of the lead frame, 

as that term is used in the context of the patents, to support

the LED chip. At best, the specification discloses that the 

LED chip is attached or wire bonded to the leads, not that 

the leads provide support. Regents also points to the specification’s discussion of prior art lead frames to support its 

argument that the lead must support the LED chip. Appellant’s Br. 42–43; Oral Arg. at 9:21–9:44. However, unlike the prior art discussed in the specification, these 

patents cover a different type of lead frame that includes a 

transparent plate. Accordingly, we adopt the Board’s construction of “lead frame.”2

We have considered Regents’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm. 

AFFIRMED

2 Regents does not dispute the Board’s factual findings on the Miyahara-based rejections under this construction. Oral Arg. at 9:53–10:38; see also Appellant’s Br. 51,

55–56, 65. 

Case: 22-1106 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 05/16/2023