20
Apr
By Eric Schweibenz
On April 16, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 26 in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-785).  In the Order, ALJ Pender construed various claim terms in the asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,078,732 (the ‘732 patent), 6,812,500 (the ‘500 patent), 7,126,162 (the ‘162 patent), 7,629,621 (the ‘621 patent), 6,459,130 (the ‘130 patent), 6,927,469 (the ‘469 patent), 7,199,454 (the ‘454 patent), and 7,427,806 (the ‘806 patent).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is OSRAM GmbH (“OSRAM”) and the Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung LED Co., Ltd., and Samsung LED America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”), and LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., Ltd., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”).  The Commission Investigative Staff is not a party.  See our July 7, 2011 post for more details on this investigation.  A Markman hearing was held on January 4-5, 2012.

The Luminescence Conversion Patents

According to the Order, the ‘732 patent, the ‘500 patent, the ‘162 patent, and the ‘621 patent are all in the same patent family, share the same specification, and are referred to by the parties as the “Luminescence Conversion Patents.”  ALJ Pender therefore determined that “like terms shall be construed the same” in these four patents.

In construing the claims of the Luminescence Conversion Patents, ALJ Pender rejected arguments by Samsung and LG that OSRAM had made disavowing statements during the prosecution of the ‘732 patent that limited the scope of all relevant claim terms of the Luminescence Conversion Patents.  Specifically, Samsung and LG asserted that OSRAM had disclaimed non-uniformly thick luminescence conversion elements and luminescence conversion elements having a non-uniform dispersion of luminescence conversion material.  However, ALJ Pender found that OSRAM’s statements during prosecution did not constitute an unequivocal disavowal of claim scope and therefore did not limit the scope of the claims.

The parties disputed the following claim terms in the Luminescence Conversion Patents:  (1) “luminescence conversion element,” (2) “luminescence conversion layer,” (3) “substantially constant thickness,” (4) “luminescence conversion encapsulation,” (5) “mixture of colors in the light output [to be/is] substantially homogeneous for different radiation directions,” “[light output having a] mixture of colors [that is] substantially homogeneous for different radiation directions,” and “structured to cause the [mixture of colors in the light output to be substantially homogeneous for different radiation directions],” (6) “said semiconductor body [having a semiconductor layer sequence] suitable for emitting electromagnetic radiation of a first wavelength range selected from a spectral region consisting of ultraviolet, blue and green” / “a spectral region consisting of ultraviolet, blue, and green,” (7) “a second wavelength range consisting of green, yellow, and red,” (8) “white” / “white light,” (9) “orthosilicates doped with rare earths,” and (10) “light diffusing particles” or “light-diffusing particles.”

ALJ Pender construed these disputed terms as follows.  With respect to “luminescence conversion element,” the ALJ gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “luminescence conversion layer,” the ALJ gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “substantially constant thickness,” the ALJ gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “luminescence conversion encapsulation,” the ALJ gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “mixture of colors in the light output [to be/is] substantially homogeneous for different radiation directions,” “[light output having a] mixture of colors [that is] substantially homogeneous for different radiation directions,” and “structured to cause the [mixture of colors in the light output to be substantially homogeneous for different radiation directions],” the ALJ gave the terms their respective plain and ordinary meanings.  With respect to “said semiconductor body [having a semiconductor layer sequence] suitable for emitting electromagnetic radiation of a first wavelength range selected from a spectral region consisting of ultraviolet, blue and green” / “a spectral region consisting of ultraviolet, blue, and green,” the ALJ gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “a second wavelength range consisting of green, yellow, and red,” the ALJ gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “white” / “white light,” the ALJ construed the term as “points on the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram bounded by the color temperature range of 2400 to 11,000 K, and within a distance of .05 from the locus of Planckian radiators at 3400 K and .03 at 11,000 K.”  With respect to “orthosilicates doped with rare earths,” the ALJ construed the term as “M2SiO5:Ce3+ (M: Sc, Y, Sc).”  With respect to “light diffusing particles” or “light-diffusing particles,” the ALJ construed the terms as “particles that scatter light and that are not luminescent material.”

ALJ Pender also construed certain undisputed claim terms in the Luminescence Conversion Patents as follows.  With respect to “color(s),” the ALJ construed the term as “light that is visible to the unaided human eye.”  With respect to “perceptible / perceptible amounts,” the ALJ construed the term as “detectable by the unaided human eye.”  With respect to “polychromatic / polychromatic radiation,” the ALJ construed the term as “radiation composed of more than one spectral region.”

The Packaging Patents

According to the Order, the ‘130 patent, the ‘469 patent, and the ‘454 patent are all in the same patent family and share the same specification.  ALJ Pender therefore determined that “like terms shall be construed the same” in these three patents.  Along with these three patents, the ALJ also included the ‘806 patent under the general heading of the “Packaging Patents” in his claim construction order.

The parties disputed the following claim terms in the Packaging Patents:  (1) “project[-s, -ing] from” and “projecting through,” (2) “at least two [first/second/further] external connections projecting from the encapsulation,” (3) “said chip carrier part projects from the encapsulation in the region of the trough body,” (4) “connection part,” (5) “a trough body positioned at the chip carrier part,” (6) “the radiation permeable encapsulation covers and seals the semiconductor chip,” (7) “a lead frame,” and (8) “a trench that runs inside said recess at least partway around said chip well.”

ALJ Pender construed these disputed terms as follows.  With respect to “project[-s, -ing] from” and “projecting through,” the ALJ gave the terms their plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “at least two [first/second/further] external connections projecting from the encapsulation,” the ALJ gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “said chip carrier part projects from the encapsulation in the region of the trough body,” the ALJ declined to proffer a construction for the term based on his finding that the parties had not briefed the construction of the term sufficiently.  With respect to “connection part,” the ALJ  gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning.  With respect to “a trough body positioned at the chip carrier part,” the ALJ construed the term as “an indented or depressed portion of the chip carrier part having a bottom wall and side walls.”  With respect to “the radiation permeable encapsulation covers and seals the semiconductor chip,” the ALJ construed the term as “the encapsulation encloses the entire semiconductor chip and is permeable to radiation.”  With respect to “a lead frame,” the ALJ construed the term as “a metal structure of a semiconductor component that makes an electrical connection to a structure outside of the semiconductor component.”  With respect to “a trench that runs inside said recess at least partway around said chip well,” the ALJ construed the term in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as “a groove-like structure that runs inside the recess around at least a portion of the chip well.”  The ALJ further found that “a trench” should be construed as “a narrow depression,” and that “that runs inside said recess at least partway around said chip well” does not need to be construed and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

ALJ Pender also construed certain undisputed claim terms in the Packaging Patents as follows.  With respect to “encapsulation,” the ALJ construed the term as “one or more materials forming the window and base body enclosing the semiconductor chip and at least a portion of the chip carrier part.”  With respect to “base body,” the ALJ construed the term as “a base portion of the encapsulation that holds the lead frame.”  With respect to “said housing base body is prefabricated on a metal lead frame by injection or pressing,” the ALJ construed the term as “the housing base body is fabricated on a metal leadframe by process of injection or pressing before the encapsulant element is formed.”  With respect to “said housing base body is prefabricated on a metal lead frame in one piece from a molding compound,” the ALJ construed the term as “the housing base body is fabricated on a metal leadframe in a single piece by an operation that molds from a molding compound the base body onto the leadframe before the encapsulant element is formed.”