Metal alloys for dual-layer DVDs; Target Technology Co., LLC; U.S. Pat. No. 8,088,466

U.S. Patent No. 8,088,466, issued on January 3, 2012 to Target Technology Company, LLC of Irvine, CA, discloses a DVD containing a semi-reflective metal alloy layer.

According to the ’466 patent, DVD dual-layer discs have two information layers, each including a pattern of pits which encodes the stored information.  The layers are illuminated from below by a laser beam, and the pattern of pits of each layer are read by detecting the light reflected from the layer.  Both the laser and the detector are below the two layers, so the first layer is a semi-reflective layer that reflects some of the laser light to the detector to read the semi-reflective layer’s information.  The semi-reflective layer also transmits some of the laser light which then is reflected from the highly reflective layer, back through the semi-reflective layer, to the detector which reads the highly reflective layer’s information.  The ’466 patent discloses a family of metal alloys containing silver and copper which can be used in the semi-reflective layer.

According to its website, in the 1990′s, Han Nee, TTC’s founder, developed a highly reflective silver alloy material that was lower in cost than the gold layers in use at the time.  The company touts that its “extensive patent portfolio and pipeline demonstrate [its] committment to the ongoing development and refinement of silver alloy materials to meet optical disc industry needs: both cost and technical.”  The value that TTC places on the exclusivity that its patents provide is clearly evident.  The company lists a number of U.S. and “outside U.S.” (OUS) patents that it says cover the use of its metal alloy material, and the list includes the ’466 patent, as well as four European patents.

In addition, the ’466 patent shows that TTC is actively mining its earliest disclosures for further patent protection.  The ’466 patent is the latest in a chain of four continuations and four continuations-in-part, such that at least some of the claims of the ’466 patent presumably have a priority date back to 2000-2001.  But this early priority date has a price.  Since a U.S. patent is only valid for 20 years from its earliest priority date, the ’466 patent will expire in 2021, only nine years from its issuance.  TTC’s reason for pursuing such continuing patents may be to obtain claims that are tailored to potentially infringing products of competitors, giving the company further leverage in any infringement lawsuit.

One of TTC’s European patents, EP 1505584 B1, is the subject of an ongoing opposition proceeding in the European Patent Office (EPO), by which three companies (Williams Advanced Materials Inc., Heraeus Materials Technology GmbH & Co. KG, and C-Corb B.V.) have challenged the patentability of the claimed invention in the European patent.  Opposition proceedings are “after-grant” proceedings which can be requested by third parties (within nine months of the patent’s grant date) to provide arguments to the EPO as to why the patent should not have been granted by the EPO.  Generally, such oppositions are brought by competitors that view the patent as potentially limiting their activity in the marketplace.  As part of the recently-enacted “America Invents Act,” U.S. patent law has been modified to allow for “after-grant” challenges to issued patents that in some ways mirror the EPO’s opposition procedure.

In the opposition of TTC’s European patent, Williams halted its participation and withdrew this past December, but the two European companies continue pursuing revocation of the patent, citing various prior art references which they contend show that TTC’s claimed invention is not patentable.  In an oral proceeding held earlier this month at the EPO, TTC and the two remaining opposers presented their arguments to a specialized panel of examiners at the EPO.  TTC’s founder, Han Nee was there as well as an expert to provide technical information to the EPO regarding the invention and the cited references.  Unfortunately for TTC, at the conclusion of the oral proceeding, the EPO’s panel sided with the opposers, revoking TTC’s patent.  However, this decision is subject to appeal, and TTC has issued a press release stating that it indeed intends to appeal the EPO’s decision and that its European patent is still enforceable despite the on-going proceeding.