DCT

2:19-cv-01366

Koninklijke Philips NV v. Tongfang Global Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-01366, C.D. Cal., 02/22/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as certain defendants are incorporated or reside in the Central District of California, and all defendants are alleged to engage in infringing activities within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4K ultra high-definition televisions infringe two patents related to secure content delivery protocols and LED backlight design.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern digital rights management (DRM) for secure media streaming and the physical construction of LED backlights used in modern flat-panel displays.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a multi-year history of pre-suit correspondence, starting with a letter to Defendant on June 22, 2016, regarding the '152 patent. A subsequent letter on September 11, 2017, identified the '977 patent and allegedly included claim charts for both patents. This history may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-26 '977 Patent Priority Date
2003-10-03 '152 Patent Priority Date
2006-05-30 '152 Patent Issue Date
2016-06-22 Plaintiff sends first notice letter regarding '152 patent
2017-03-07 '977 Patent Issue Date
2017-09-11 Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding '977 patent
2019-02-22 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,590,977 - "Secure Authenticated Distance Measurement," issued March 7, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of preventing unauthorized copying of digital content over networks while still permitting legitimate, short-range sharing—for example, a user playing their purchased movie on a friend's television nearby. Standard secure communication protocols authenticate a device's compliance but do not verify its physical proximity, creating a risk of unauthorized remote access ('977 Patent, col. 2:9-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for a first device (e.g., a content source) to perform an authenticated distance measurement with a second device (e.g., a display). The two devices share a secret key. The first device sends a signal, the second device modifies it using the secret, and sends it back. By measuring the signal's round-trip time and verifying the secret-based modification, the first device confirms both the identity and the proximity of the second device before transmitting protected content ('977 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-8). The logic of this interaction is illustrated in the signal flow diagram of Figure 3 ('977 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a mechanism to bind digital rights to a physical location or "personal bubble," a key concept for content owners seeking to control distribution in an increasingly connected world ('977 Patent, col. 2:36-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1, which is a means-plus-function claim directed to a receiving device.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • "means for providing a certificate" identifying the device.
    • "means for receiving a first signal" from a source device after the source device confirms compliance.
    • "means for generating a second signal... derived using a secret" known by the source device.
    • "means for transmitting said second signal".
    • "means for generating a secure authenticated channel" using the secret.
    • "means for receiving... protected content" after the source device determines the round-trip signal time is "less than a predetermined time".
  • The complaint does not specify assertion of dependent claims but reserves the right to do so.

U.S. Patent No. 7,052,152 - "LCD Backlight Using Two-Dimensional Array LEDs," issued May 30, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Early LCD backlights based on fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) offered a limited color gamut and brightness ('152 Patent, col. 1:16-20). While LED backlights offered improvements, initial designs were either inefficient due to long light-mixing paths or prohibitively expensive, requiring a very dense array of LEDs to ensure uniform illumination without "hot spots" ('152 Patent, col. 1:43-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a direct-lit backlight using a two-dimensional array of LEDs that are more widely spaced to reduce cost and complexity. To maintain brightness uniformity, the invention proposes a specific geometric relationship: the ratio of the backlight's height (H)—the distance from the LEDs to the diffuser—to the pitch (P)—the distance between LEDs—should be between 0.3 and 1.2. This specific H/P ratio is described as enabling sufficient light mixing from a sparse array, achieving a cost-effective and uniform backlight ('152 Patent, col. 4:51-58; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This design provided a practical compromise that helped enable thinner, more efficient, and cost-effective direct-lit LED televisions by reducing the required number of LEDs without sacrificing illumination quality ('152 Patent, col. 2:28-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A "housing comprising reflective surfaces".
    • An "array of substantially identical light emitting diodes (LEDs)" on a reflective bottom surface.
    • A specific geometric constraint where "a ratio of the height to a pitch of the LEDs is between approximately 0.3 to 1.2".
    • A "diffuser above the LEDs".
  • The complaint does not specify assertion of dependent claims but reserves the right to do so.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "various Westinghouse, Element, and Seiki-branded 4K ultra high-definition televisions" ("Accused Devices") (Compl. ¶ 45). Specific models are identified, including Westinghouse model WD50UC4300 and Seiki model SE42UMS (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 60).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Devices contain functionality for streaming multimedia between devices, including hardware and software that perform secure communications compliant with "at least the HDCP 2.0 specification or higher" (Compl. ¶ 51). This functionality is accused of infringing the '977 Patent.
  • The complaint also alleges the Accused Devices contain a direct-lit LED backlight structure. The physical dimensions and arrangement of the LEDs, housing, and diffuser within this structure are alleged to infringe the '152 Patent (Compl. ¶ 61).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'977 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
means for providing a certificate identifying said receiving device Functionality that supports technology for streaming multimedia between devices, allegedly by performing secure, authenticated distance measurements in compliance with standards such as HDCP 2.0 or higher. ¶51 col. 8:4-6
means for receiving a first signal from a first device after the first device determines... that the receiving device is compliant... The Accused Devices' hardware and software for receiving signals from a content source as part of a secure connection protocol. ¶51 col. 8:35-37
means for generating a second signal after receiving the first signal, wherein said second signal is derived using a secret known by the first device The Accused Devices' hardware and software for modifying a received signal using a shared secret or key, as performed in protocols like HDCP 2.0. ¶51 col. 8:37-39
means for receiving... protected content after the first device determines that... a time between a transmission of the first signal and receipt of the second signal... is less than a predetermined time The Accused Devices' ability to receive protected content after a source device completes an authentication and locality check based on signal round-trip time. ¶51 col. 4:1-5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Because claim 1 uses "means-plus-function" language, a central dispute will be whether the structures within the Accused Devices that implement the HDCP 2.0 (or higher) protocol are structurally equivalent to the corresponding structures disclosed in the '977 patent's specification (e.g., the processor and memory described in relation to Fig. 4).
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused HDCP 2.0 (or higher) implementation actually performs a "distance measurement" based on signal round-trip time, as opposed to other forms of authentication? The complaint's assertion that the devices are compliant with the HDCP 2.0 standard raises the question of whether that standard requires the specific claimed functionality.

'152 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing comprising reflective surfaces and a top opening... The internal backlight assembly of the Accused Devices, which contains reflective interior surfaces to maximize light efficiency. ¶61 col. 3:18-24
an array of substantially identical light emitting diodes (LEDs) supported on a reflective bottom surface in the housing... The Accused Devices include a two-dimensional array of LEDs mounted on a backplane to provide illumination for the LCD panel. ¶61 col. 3:3-4
wherein the housing has a height, and wherein a ratio of the height to a pitch of the LEDs is between approximately 0.3 to 1.2 The complaint alleges that the physical dimensions of the backlight assembly in the Accused Devices fall within this specific geometric ratio. ¶61 col. 4:51-56
a diffuser above the LEDs for providing diffused light to an LCD panel The Accused Devices contain a diffuser sheet located between the LED array and the LCD panel to ensure uniform brightness. ¶61 col. 3:5-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the '152 patent is a factual one that will depend on measurements of the accused TVs' internal components. The key question is whether the measured ratio of the backlight height to the LED pitch in the Accused Devices falls within the claimed range.
    • Scope Questions: The construction of "approximately" will be critical. The parties will likely dispute how much deviation from the "0.3 to 1.2" range is permissible under this term, which could determine the outcome for devices with measurements near the boundaries of the range.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '977 Patent:

  • The Term: "distance measurement"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its definition will determine whether the "locality check" functions in modern DRM protocols like HDCP 2.2 fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory hinges on equating the accused protocol's function with this claimed "measurement."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the goal is to check if a distance is "within a pre-defined distance interval" ('977 Patent, col. 4:1-3), which may support the argument that a pass/fail locality check, rather than a precise numerical calculation, constitutes a "measurement" for the purposes of the invention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the process as "determining the distance... according to a time difference" ('977 Patent, col. 3:5-8), language that suggests a more formal calculation of a physical distance value, potentially narrowing the scope to exclude simpler time-based checks.

For the '152 Patent:

  • The Term: "approximately"
  • Context and Importance: This term directly modifies the critical numerical range of the height-to-pitch ratio. Its construction will define the boundaries of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it creates ambiguity in what is otherwise a clear-cut numerical limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "0.3 to 1.2" range as yielding the "best results" and refers to it as a "preferred relationship," which could suggest that values slightly outside this range that still achieve the invention's purpose could be considered "approximately" within it ('152 Patent, col. 4:51-58).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The inventors chose to define their invention with a specific numerical range. A defendant could argue that "approximately" only accounts for minor experimental or measurement tolerances and does not substantially extend the explicit boundaries of the "0.3 to 1.2" range.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide "instructions, user manuals, advertising, and/or marketing materials" that encourage customers to use the infringing features (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 62). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused hardware and software constitute a material part of the invention and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents prior to the lawsuit. It specifically pleads that Philips sent notice letters identifying the '152 patent on June 22, 2016, and the '977 patent on September 11, 2017, and further alleges that claim charts were provided (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 39, 54, 64).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue for the '977 patent will be one of structural and functional equivalence: Given the patent’s use of means-plus-function claiming, does the accused HDCP 2.0 (or higher) locality-check functionality perform the same function, in substantially the same way, and with a structurally equivalent implementation as the specific "authenticated distance measurement" apparatus disclosed in the patent's specification?
  • The case for the '152 patent will turn on a question of empirical fact and definitional breadth: First, do the physical dimensions of the accused televisions' backlight systems, upon measurement, actually exhibit a height-to-pitch ratio within the claimed "0.3 to 1.2" range? Second, how broadly will the court construe the term "approximately," which will dictate whether products with measurements close to the range's boundaries are found to infringe?
  • A third key question will be one of intent: Do the detailed pre-suit notice letters and alleged provision of claim charts, as described in the complaint, establish that any infringement by the defendants was willful, potentially exposing them to enhanced damages?