IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT _____________________________ TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC., EPISTAR CORPORATION, LITE-ON INC., LITE-ON SERVICE USA, INC., LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, LITE-ON TRADING USA, INC., Defendants-Appellants _____________________________ 2016-2576, -2577, -2578, -2579, -2580, -2581, -2582, -2591, -2592, -2593, -2594, -2595 _____________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:12-cv-11935-PBS, Hon. Patti B. Saris, Chief District Judge _____________________________ BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS EVERLIGHT AND LITE-ON _____________________________ Kevin K. Russell Thomas C. Goldstein Charles H. Davis GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C. 7475 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 850 Bethesda, M.D. 20814 (202) 362-0636 Attorneys for Everlight and Lite-On Defendants-Appellants December 27, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Lite-On Inc., Lite-On Service USA, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corp., and Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Lite-On Inc., Lite- On Service USA, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corp., Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Lite-On Inc., Lite- On Service USA, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corp., Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. is a parent corporation that owns 10 percent or more of Everlight America’s, Inc.’s stock. Everlight Electronics, Co., Ltd. is publicly listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. Lite-On Technology Corp. is a parent corporation that owns 10 percent or more of Lite-On Inc., Lite-On Service USA, Inc., and Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. Lite-On Technology Corp. is publicly listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. 4. The names of all the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP: Christopher S. Schultz, E. Robert Yoches, Jeffrey D. Smyth, Kenneth M. Frankel, MingTao Yang, Tina Hulse Hamilton Brook Smith & Reynolds, P.C.: Susan G.L. Glovsky, Lawrence P. Cogswell i Goldstein & Russell P.C.: Kevin K. Russell, Thomas C. Goldstein, Charles H. Davis. Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren, LLP: Richard C. Vasquez, Robert McArthur, Eric Benisek, Jeffrey T. Lindgren, Stephen C. Steinberg, III /s/ Kevin K. Russell Counsel for Defendant- Appellants December 27, 2016 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................... 9 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 11 I. The ’738 Patent Fails The Enablement Requirement of Section 112(a). ........... 11 A. The Specification Of The ’738 Patent Fails To Enable An Amorphous Buffer Layer. .................................................................................................. 12 1. As A Simple Matter Of Physics, Following The Specification Will Not Produce An Amorphous Buffer Layer. ............................................. 13 2. The District Court’s Contrary Reasons For Nonetheless Upholding The Patent’s Validity Are Meritless. ........................................................ 15 a. The Specification Does Not Suggest Skipping The Second Step. ...... 15 b. Following The Two-Step Process Does Not Create The Purely Amorphous Buffer Layer Claimed By The Patent. ............................. 18 c. Dr. Moustakas Did Not Testify It Was Possible To Grow An Amorphous Buffer Layer Following The Directions In The Specification. ....................................................................................... 20 B. The Specification Of The ’738 Patent Also Fails To Enable A Monocrystalline Growth Layer Directly On An Amorphous Buffer Layer. ............................................................................................................. 23 iii 1. The Patent Was Required To Enable A Monocrystalline Growth Layer Directly On Top Of An Amorphous Buffer Layer. ....................... 23 2. The Parties Agreed That It Is Impossible To Grow A Monocrystalline Growth Layer Directly On Top Of An Amorphous Buffer Layer With Epitaxy. .................................................. 27 3. BU’s Experts’ Conclusory Testimony That It Is Possible To Create The Claimed Device Is Insufficient To Show That The Patent Enabled Its Creation. ................................................................................ 28 4. The Patent Does Not Enable Anything Through Non-Epitaxial Methods. ................................................................................................... 30 II. The ’738 Patent Fails The Written Description Requirement of Section 112(a). .................................................................................................... 35 III. The District Court Erred In Construing The Claim Term “Grown On.” ........... 40 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 40 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................... 10, 24, 25 ALZA Corp. v. Andrx. Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 33 Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 37, 38 Application of Glass, 492 F.2d 1228 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........................................................................... 29 Application of Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ........................................................................... 16 Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ......................................... 10, 35, 36, 39 Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 707 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 10 Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) ............................................................ 10 Enzo Biochem., Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 34 Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 34 In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 28 In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 24 v In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 24 Jennings v. Jones, 587 F.3d 430 (1st Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 10 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 14 LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp., 837 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 9 Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 24 LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 35, 36, 37 Mag Sil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs., Inc., 687 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 4, 14, 39 Marcano Rivera v. Turabo Med. Ctr. P’ship, 415 F.3d 162 (1st Cir. 2005) .................................................................................. 9 Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................