Advanced Display Systems v. Kent State Univ.

Decision Date18 May 2000
Citation212 F.3d 1272,54 USPQ2d 1673
Parties(Fed. Cir. 2000) ADVANCED DISPLAY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, and BAO GANG WU, Third Party Defendant-Appellee, v. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY and KENT RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and KENT DISPLAY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant. 99-1012,-1013 DECIDED:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Kevin C. Nash, McKool Smith, P.C., of Dallas, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellee and third party defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was C. Michael Clark, Attorney at Law, of Corinth Texas.

Richard J. Hoskins, Schiff Hardin & Waite, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendants/third party plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Patricia J. Thompson and Julie L. Brown. Of counsel on the brief was Ray L. Weber, Renner, Kenner, Grieve, Bobak, Taylor & Weber, of Akron, Ohio. Of counsel were V. James Adduci, II, and Michael L. Doane, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P, of Washington, DC.

Before PLAGER, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

DECISION

This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, entered on a jury verdict, in a consolidated declaratory judgment and patent infringement action relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,453,863 (the "West patent"). Advanced Display Systems, Inc. ("ADS") filed a complaint in the Northern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the West patent. Kent State University ("KSU"), an assignee of the West patent, and licensees Kent Research Corporation ("KRC") and Kent Display Systems, Inc. ("KDS") (collectively "Kent") then filed an infringement action, and the two cases were consolidated with Kent as the nominal defendant and ADS as the nominal plaintiff. The parties agreed to have a magistrate judge preside over the jury trial. Following the two-week trial, the jury found that the West patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness and not infringed by ADS. Kent then moved for a new trial on all the issues in light of newly discovered evidence. Kent also moved for a new trial on anticipation, alleging an erroneous jury instruction. In addition, Kent filed a motion for sanctions against ADS's counsel for withholding evidence during discovery. The magistrate judge denied all of these motions. On appeal, we hold that prejudicial legal error tainted the jury instruction, we vacate the judgment, and remand for a new trial on anticipation. We also remand for a new trial on obviousness and infringement in light of the newly discovered evidence. Finally, we reverse the magistrate judge's ruling on the motion for sanctions.

BACKGROUND

Since 1965, scientists at KSU's Liquid Crystal Institute ("LCI") have been researching the various properties and applications of liquid crystal materials. An important area of research focused on liquid crystal displays ("LCDs"). A typical LCD consists of a sandwich of liquid crystal material between two glass substrates. An electrical driver1 connects to the sandwich in order to stimulate or address the liquid crystal material, thereby creating readable numerical or alphabetical characters. Manufacturers of electro-optic products such as digital watches and notebook computers screens, use LCDs to display images and information.

Traditionally, LCDs were constructed by combining varying concentrations of liquid crystal materials and polymers. For example, one method for creating LCDs involved evaporating water from an aqueous emulsion of liquid crystal material in a solution of water-soluble polymer. Another method involved phase separation of liquid crystal from a homogenous solution with a synthetic resin to generate a liquid crystal phase blended with a polymer phase. Those methods, however, were expensive and entailed complex manufacturing processes. In addition, the presence of polymers created a haze effect that obstructed visibility of the displayed information when the LCDs were viewed from oblique angles.

In early 1992, Dr. John West ("West"), director of LCI, began experimenting with techniques for developing polymer-free LCDs. West eventually developed a new, polymer-free LCD using cholestric visible materials.2 West determined that applying an electric field pulse of sufficient duration and voltage to cholestric visible material creates a contrast between the material's light reflecting and light scattering textures, thereby enabling a stable image display. West further found that a stable image could be sustained through a single electric field pulse rather than continuous application of an electric field. Thus, through the unique use of cholestric visible materials, West achieved the advantages of prior LCDs without the drawbacks attendant to the use of polymers.

On May 4, 1993, West and his colleague, Dr. Deng-Ke Yang, filed a patent application covering their polymer-free device and a method for stimulating it. On September 26, 1995, the application matured into the West patent. West then assigned the patent to KSU, which through its licensing arm KRC, subsequently licensed the patent to KDS.

In February 1992, Dr. Bao Gang Wu ("Wu"), a former KSU student and colleague of West, formed ADS. In June 1993, Jiamini Gao ("Gao"), ADS's vice-president of research and development, secured a written formula for Kent's cholestric LCD. Even with knowledge of that formula, however, ADS failed to develop a functional LCD device because it could not construct an effective electrical driver.

In early 1994, Dr. Zvi Yaniv ("Yaniv"), then president of KDS and a former classmate of Wu, visited ADS and demonstrated a prototype of Kent's cholestric LCD and its electrical driver. Following the demonstration, Yaniv went to lunch with Wu, leaving the prototype at ADS's offices. Seizing the opportunity, Gao clandestinely removed the prototype from its box and brought it into an ADS laboratory. Gao then instructed a group of ADS engineers, including Victor Zhou ("Zhou"), to disassemble the prototype, photograph its various components, and re-assemble it in such a manner as to avoid any indication of tampering. Throughout this process, Gao urged his employees to work quickly to avoid detection because he knew the implication of the theft.

Prior to Yaniv's visit, ADS failed to develop an operational, polymer-free LCD through its independent efforts. Equipped with the photographs of Kent's prototype, however, ADS replicated Kent's cholestric LCD and electrical driver within a month. On April 11, 1994, ADS also filed a patent application for a polymer-free LCD based on the equivalent subject matter that had been photographed and copied during the surreptitious disassembly of Kent's prototype. The patent listed Wu, Gao, Zhou, and Yao-Dong Ma as inventors. While ADS's application was pending, the West patent issued, and the Patent and Trademark Office Examiner rejected ADS's claims directed exclusively to polymer-free LCDs as anticipated by the West patent. ADS consequently amended and limited its claims to cover the application of surface treatment in polymer-free LCDs. The ADS application eventually matured into U.S. Patent No. 5,625,477 on April 29, 1997.

In early 1996, Kent learned that ADS was promoting a polymer-free LCD and notified ADS that it intended to enforce the West patent. While Kent and ADS were discussing licensing arrangements, ADS filed a complaint in the Northern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the West patent. After settlement negotiations failed, Kent sued ADS for infringement of the West patent, and the cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Texas.

Concurrent with discovery in the present case, ADS filed suit in Texas state court against USA Display, a company with several former ADS employees, alleging trade secret misappropriation. ADS's attorneys in the USA Display suit and in the present case were from the same law firm. During discovery in the USA Display suit, Zhou's deposition was taken. The pertinent parts of the deposition are set forth below.

Q: Can you describe for me or explain to me what Exhibit 3 is?

A: This is a picture taken by an employee in ADS. I cannot remember who took it, but I know Dr. Zvi Yaniv [and Kent] also develop a similar display, they call [theirs] bistable display, but in ADS they call multistable display. But ADS did not know how to design the driver for this device. So one day Dr. Zvi Yaniv visited ADS with a sample, and [Kent] have [a] completed driver . . . . And Dr. Zvi Yaniv gave to Jianmi Gao, who is the vice president of ADS and boss of R & D group, so he opened Dr. Zvi Yaniv['s] . . . sample, and took this picture, while at that time Dr. Zvi Yaniv was not there. So [Yaniv] did not know.

. . . .

Q: What is this picture of?

A: This picture is the picture for the sample brought by Zvi Yaniv.

. . . .

Q: And [Yaniv] gave [the sample to ADS]?

A: [H]e not gave a sample, he just waited at ADS with a sample and -

Q: [T]hen he left?

A: No, he did not [leave], he showed the sample. But during [t]his time period he left and [Gao] opened the box and took the picture.

. . . .

Q: You were there?

A: Yeah, I was there.

Q: Did you open up the driver?

A: Yes. I was an employee there. I did whatever my boss told me to do.

. . . .

Q: Where was Mr. Zvi Yaniv [at that time]?]

A: Well, we are taking picture and I don't know who he was talking to, but he was somewhere within the building or maybe left for lunch. . . . I just know that [Gao] want us to take the picture, and we took it.

. . . .

Q: Prior to the meeting in which the Kent State product was taken apart and photographed at ADS . . . was ADS working on a similar type of display?

A: Yeah. They were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
461 cases
  • Civix-Ddi, LLC v. Cellco Partnership
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 14, 2005
    ...a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation." See Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.Cir.2000). Here, Expedia does not explain how any of its alleged prior art publications disclose each and every el......
  • In re Depomed Patent Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 30, 2016
    ...a patent claim is a question of fact and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 2. Inherent Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, "a [claim] limitation or the entire invention is inherent and ......
  • Eli Lilly And Co. v. Sicor Pharm.S Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • March 31, 2010
    ...or prior research to create the claimed invention can be determinative of nonobviousness. Advanced Display Sys. Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1285 (Fed.Cir.2000); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1088 Forest Labs., Inc. v. Ivax Pharms., Inc., 501 F.3d 1263, 1269 ......
  • National Steel Car v. Canadian Pacific Ry.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 6, 2003
    ...227 F.3d at 1379-80; Monarch Knitting Mack Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 885 (Fed.Cir.1998); Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1285-85 (Fed.Cir.1988); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 77'4 F.2d 1132, 1144 (Fed.Cir.1985); EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Proof of Equivalence After Festo
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 12, 2002
    ...evidence of copying is relevant to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the court stated that "the evidence of copying . . . supports a claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents." Id......
  • Incorporated References Can Be Used in an Anticipation Rejection
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • April 19, 2023
    ...if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Arbutus, 2023 WL 2876820, at *4 (citing Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In reaching its decision that the PTAB did not err in finding that the Morphology Limitation was inherently anticipa......
7 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §9.06 Graham Factor (4): Secondary Considerations
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 9 The Nonobviousness Requirement
    • Invalid date
    ...and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a virtually identical replica, see Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2000); or access to, and substantial similarity to, the patented product (as opposed to the patent), Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v......
  • Putting the "public" Back in "public Use" Interpreting the 2011 Leahy-smith America Invents Act
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 31-4, June 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...in the United States more than one year before the application for the patent. Id.40. E.g., Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).41. . Id.42. See 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012) ("A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained . . . if the differences......
  • Secondary considerations: a structured framework for patent analysis.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 74 No. 1, September 2010
    • September 22, 2010
    ...Caleb Colton famously said, "[limitation is the sincerest form of flattery." (133) See Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[E]ven after gaining access to the claimed invention, [the alleged infringer] unable to design around the West paten......
  • Patent Anticipation and Obviousness as Possession
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 65-4, 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...knowledge of the PHOSITA. See supra notes 174-213 and accompanying text.245. See, e.g., Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Incorporation by reference "makes clear that the material is effectively part of the host document as if it were exp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT