Log in
Log in
Or log in with
GoogleGoogle
Twitter Twitter
Facebook Facebook
Apple Apple     
Sign up
Or log in with
GoogleGoogle
Twitter Twitter
Facebook Facebook
Apple Apple     
  1. Homepage
  2. Equities
  3. Korea, republic of
  4. Korea Stock Exchange
  5. LG Electronics Inc.
  6. News
  7. Summary
    A066570   KR7066570003

LG ELECTRONICS INC.

(A066570)
  Report
End-of-day quote Korea Stock Exchange  -  2022-09-29
78600.00 KRW   +0.77%
09/30Japan's Daikin to build air conditioners in Nigeria in renewed push
RE
09/29Japan's Daikin says it will assemble air conditioners in Nigeria as it renews Africa expansion
RE
09/26PA RECOGNIZES LG FOR GREEN POWER LEADERSHIP; LG Electronics USA Increases Renewable Energy Usage, Climbs EPA's Top 30 Tech & Telecom Partners List
AQ
SummaryQuotesChartsNewsRatingsCalendarCompanyFinancialsConsensusRevisionsFunds 
SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

Sure, A Court Can Rewrite Patent Claims. But Can It Change A Disclosure? (Pavo Solutions, Part II)

08/10/2022 | 06:09am EDT

After discussing a court's ability to rewrite patent claim language in view of the Federal Circuit's decision in Pavo Solutions v. Kingston Technology (Pavo Solutions, Part I), my post last week noted that there was more to the story, including the issue of whether a court could rewrite a patent's disclosure. Here are a few thoughts on that issue.

On July 11, 2022, the Federal Circuit rendered its decision in LG Electronics v. Immervision, a case stemming from LG's challenge of Immervision patent claims as obvious in an IPR and the PTAB's determination that the challenged claims were not obvious. The fight in the IPR, as well as at the Federal Circuit, focused on whether Embodiment 3 in a prior art U.S. patent (Tada) should be accepted as written, which would make it more likely that the claims were obvious, or whether Tada's disclosure should be rewritten because of "obvious" mistakes, which would make obviousness of the claims less likely. After parsing through competing positions of each side's expert, the PTAB determined, and the Federal Circuit agreed, that Tada's disclosure related to Embodiment 3 should be rewritten.

The "obvious" error for Tada's Embodiment 3 related to properties/characteristics of Embodiment 3 which appeared to be a "cut-and-paste" error from another embodiment in Tada and, thus, erroneously associated with Embodiment 3.

The Federal Circuit noted the standard for reviewing errors in disclosures:

The court in [In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666 (C.C.P.A. 1970)] held that where a prior art reference includes an obvious error of a typographical or similar nature that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art who would mentally disregard the errant information as a misprint or mentally substitute it for the correct information, the errant information cannot be said to disclose subject matter.

Based on this standard, the Federal Circuit determined that errant cutting and pasting had occurred in Tada which would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, so Tada's Embodiment 3 as written did not render Immervision's patent claims obvious because such information would be corrected or disregarded upon review.

Before further discussion, a few more interesting facts from the case are:

(1) In Yale, the prior art was a journal article containing an erroneous chemical formula, and the article's author had submitted a letter to the journal recognizing that the chemical formula was incorrect;

(2) Tada's U.S. patent was based on a Japanese priority application, and the Japanese application contained correct information for Embodiment 3. The Japanese priority application was incorporated by reference into Tada's U.S. patent;

(3) Tada never tried to correct the information related to Embodiment 3 in the U.S. patent;

(4) Immervision's expert spent 10-12 hours to determine what the problem was with Tada's Embodiment 3 as written; and

(5) Judge Newman's dissenting opinion in LG Electronics highlighted the author's letter recognizing the error in Yale and contrasted this acknowledgment with Tada's failure to correct information related to Embodiment 3 in the U.S. patent. The dissent also highlighted the length of time it took Immervision's expert to uncover the error.

There is a distinction between the standard for rewriting claims (Pavo Solutions) and the standard for rewriting disclosures (LG Electronics).

Both standards relate to correcting minor errors, such as typographical errors and the like, and are viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the claim rewriting standard is stricter than the disclosure rewriting standard. For claims, they should be rewritten only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims; and the error must be evident from the face of the patent. For disclosures, the standard is simply based on whether the error is one which would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.

If the standard for claims from Pavo Solutions were applied in LG Electronics, wouldn't the issue be subject to reasonable debate? The experts certainly debated it! And wouldn't the prosecution history suggest a different interpretation? Tada never changed Embodiment 3 in the U.S. patent, so doesn't the file history show that it is correct as written? The Pavo Solutions standard very well could lead to a different result in LG Electronics.

Further, as Judge Newman highlighted in her dissent, it took Immervision's expert a long time (10-12 hours) to figure out the problem - and he is an expert! If the standard is based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, it presumably would take such a non-expert even longer to deduce the problem, if at all. Shouldn't these facts and inferences be more compelling evidence that the error in Tada is not "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art"?

Finally, in the category of hypotheticals, what if Tada did not have a Japanese priority application, or what if the priority application were not incorporated by reference into the U.S. patent? Could Tada have changed its disclosure at the U.S. patent office, or would such a change have been considered to be undisclosed "new matter" in the application and, thus, disallowed by the patent office? If the U.S. patent office would not allow such a change in disclosure, should the courts be able to rewrite it in such a way?

Going forward, it will be interesting to see how often courts rewrite claims and/or disclosures in patents. If you are involved in litigation, it might be worth considering asking a court to rewrite the claims and/or disclosure if you think it would help your case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mr Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria
VA 22314
UNITED STATES
Tel: 703413 3000
Fax: 703413 2220
E-mail: caskey@oblon.com
URL: www.oblon.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

All news about LG ELECTRONICS INC.
09/30Japan's Daikin to build air conditioners in Nigeria in renewed push
RE
09/29Japan's Daikin says it will assemble air conditioners in Nigeria as it renews Africa ex..
RE
09/26PA RECOGNIZES LG FOR GREEN POWER LEADERSHIP; LG Electronics USA Increases Renewable Ene..
AQ
09/23Error Apparent? Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Errors In Prior Art
AQ
09/23EPA Recognizes LG for Green Power Leadership
AQ
09/19LG Smart TVs Get a New ACR Solution, Legacy Technology Replaced by LG Ads Solutions; LG..
AQ
09/15Lg Electronics : Shares Insights, Presents Latest Vehicle Component Innovation at Autosens..
PU
09/15Lg Electronics : Smart TVs Get a New ACR Solution, Legacy Technology Replaced by Ads Solut..
PU
09/14LG Grows New Business Ventures with Selection of Finalists in First 'Mission For The Fu..
AQ
09/13Lg Electronics : Showcases Leadership in Next-Gen 6g THz Band Demonstration
PU
More news
Analyst Recommendations on LG ELECTRONICS INC.
More recommendations
Financials
Sales 2022 82 065 B 57,1 B 57,1 B
Net income 2022 2 399 B 1,67 B 1,67 B
Net Debt 2022 3 310 B 2,30 B 2,30 B
P/E ratio 2022 5,58x
Yield 2022 1,54%
Capitalization 13 438 B 9 358 M 9 358 M
EV / Sales 2022 0,20x
EV / Sales 2023 0,17x
Nbr of Employees 33 737
Free-Float 69,0%
Chart LG ELECTRONICS INC.
Duration : Period :
LG Electronics Inc. Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends LG ELECTRONICS INC.
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
TrendsBearishBearishBearish
Income Statement Evolution
Consensus
Sell
Buy
Mean consensus BUY
Number of Analysts 25
Last Close Price 78 600,00 KRW
Average target price 133 160,00 KRW
Spread / Average Target 69,4%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
Joo-wan Cho President. Chief Executive Officer & Director
Bong Seok kwon Chairman
Byoung-hoon Kim Chief Technology Officer & Executive VP
Jong-Sang Lee Vice President, Head-Legal & Compliance Support
Dae-Hyung Kim Independent Director
Sector and Competitors