Court Opinion

ID: 9394758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 14:01:49.621172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:02.562367
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1106    Document: 40    Page: 1   Filed: 05/16/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 2    Filed: 05/16/2023

 2            THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v.
                                       SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.

                   ______________________

     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 Ap-
 peal 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 refer-
 ences. 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 rejec-
 tions 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 re-
 jections 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: 3    Filed: 05/16/2023

 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA    v.           3
 SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.

 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 transpar-
 ent 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 spec-
 ification’s discussion of prior art lead frames to support its
 argument that the lead must support the LED chip. Ap-
 pellant’s Br. 42–43; Oral Arg. at 9:21–9:44. However, un-
 like 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 con-
 struction 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 find-
 ings on the Miyahara-based rejections under this construc-
 tion. Oral Arg. at 9:53–10:38; see also Appellant’s Br. 51,
 55–56, 65.