DCT

2:20-cv-01406

Koninklijke Philips NV v. TTE Technology Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01406, C.D. Cal., 07/10/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant TTE Technology, Inc.'s principal place of business in Corona, California, within the district, as well as alleged infringing acts, including sales and importation, occurring in the district. For foreign defendants, venue is asserted on the basis that they are amenable to suit in any U.S. district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TCL-branded 4K UHD televisions infringe patents related to LED backlight architecture and secure content delivery protocols.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue are fundamental to modern high-definition televisions, concerning both the physical design of LED backlights for uniform illumination and the digital rights management (DRM) systems used to protect high-value video content during transmission.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history of communication between the parties, including offers to license the asserted patent families. Notice regarding the technology of the '152 patent is alleged to have been provided as early as February 2012, and notice regarding the family of the '977 and '564 patents is alleged as of January 2017. The complaint also notes that other manufacturers have taken licenses to the patented technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-26 Priority Date ('977, '564 Patents)
2003-10-03 Priority Date ('152 Patent)
2006-05-30 Issue Date (U.S. Patent 7,052,152)
2012-02-01 Alleged first notice to TCL regarding '152 Patent
2014-01-01 TCL launches brand in North America (approx.)
2017-01-10 Alleged notice to TCL regarding '977/'564 patent family
2017-03-07 Issue Date (U.S. Patent 9,590,977)
2019-05-21 Issue Date (U.S. Patent 10,298,564)
2020-07-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the shortcomings of then-current LCD backlights. Backlights using Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps (CCFLs) contained mercury and offered a limited color gamut. Early attempts to use LEDs either required long mixing chambers that reduced efficiency or used densely packed arrays that were prohibitively expensive and suffered from brightness and color non-uniformity due to variations between individual LEDs (’152 Patent, col. 1:11-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a direct LED backlight system that achieves high uniformity without dense packing. It utilizes a two-dimensional array of LEDs where the light from individual diodes is mixed in a cavity before reaching a diffuser. The key to this solution is a specific geometric relationship: the ratio of the backlight's height or thickness (H) to the pitch or spacing between LEDs (P) is maintained between approximately 0.3 and 1.2 (’152 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:52-62; Fig. 4). This design allows for a wider, more cost-effective spacing of LEDs while still producing homogenous light for the LCD panel.
  • Technical Importance: This approach offered a practical and cost-effective method for using LEDs in large-format direct-lit displays, helping to overcome the trade-off between cost, efficiency, and image uniformity that had hindered earlier LED backlight designs (’152 Patent, col. 2:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least dependent claim 16 and independent method claim 30 (Compl. ¶50, 53). Claim 16 depends on independent claim 1.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A display device with a housing containing reflective surfaces.
    • An array of substantially identical LEDs supported on a reflective bottom surface in the housing.
    • A specific ratio of the housing's height to the pitch of the LEDs, which is between approximately 0.3 and 1.2.
    • A diffuser positioned above the LEDs.
  • Dependent claim 16 adds the limitation that the LEDs are arranged in a "rectangular grid" (’152 Patent, col. 8:40-41).

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 securely distributing digital content in a way that respects ownership rights while allowing for legitimate, localized use cases. Prior secure protocols could authenticate a device but could not verify its physical proximity, creating a risk that content intended for a nearby screen could be illicitly streamed over the internet (’977 Patent, col. 2:17-30). The patent gives the example of a user wanting to watch their own movie on a neighbor's television, which requires a way to confirm both content rights and physical closeness (’977 Patent, col. 2:20-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method that combines device authentication with a proximity test. A second device (e.g., a TV) presents a certificate to a first device (e.g., a source player). If compliant, the devices perform a distance measurement based on the round-trip time of a signal exchange. The first device sends a signal, the second device modifies it using a shared secret and sends it back, and the first device measures the elapsed time. If this time is below a predetermined threshold (proving proximity), the first device proceeds to stream the protected content over a secure channel (’977 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-13).
  • Technical Importance: This technology established a method for a "locality check" within a DRM framework, providing the technical underpinnings for content protection standards like High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) 2.x, which is essential for securely transmitting 4K and other high-value content between devices (Compl. ¶65-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 26 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 26 include:
    • A method for a second device to control reception of protected content.
    • Sending a certificate to a first device.
    • Receiving a first signal from the first device after it confirms compliance based on the certificate.
    • Sending a second signal (derived using a secret) back to the first device.
    • Generating a secure authenticated channel using the secret.
    • Receiving the protected content only after the first device determines the round-trip time between the first and second signals is less than a predetermined time.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,298,564 - Secure Authenticated Distance Measurement, issued May 21, 2019

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,298,564, "Secure Authenticated Distance Measurement," issued May 21, 2019 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family as the ’977 patent, this patent claims a device, rather than a method, for solving the same technical problem. It describes a second device (e.g., a TV) comprising a processor circuit arranged to execute instructions for performing a secure authenticated distance measurement by exchanging signals with a first device, using a shared secret to verify the exchange, and checking if the signal round-trip time is below a threshold before receiving protected content (’564 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶83-85).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the hardware and software in TCL televisions that implement the HDCP 2.x protocol, which allegedly performs the claimed secure distance measurement as a prerequisite for streaming protected multimedia content (Compl. ¶79-80).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies "TCL-branded 4K UHD LED televisions having HDMI with HDCP 2.x," with the "TCL 55R617 55-Inch 4K Ultra HD Roku Smart LED TV" cited as a non-limiting example (Compl. ¶45).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The accused televisions are alleged to practice the patented technologies through two primary functions. First, they allegedly employ a direct-lit LED backlight array with a specific physical geometry to illuminate the display (Compl. ¶52). Second, they implement the HDCP 2.x standard, which is used to create a secure, authenticated connection with a content source (e.g., a streaming device or Blu-ray player) over an HDMI cable (Compl. ¶15, 61-62).
    • The complaint alleges that this HDCP 2.x implementation includes an "Authentication and Key Exchange" stage followed by a "locality check." This check is alleged to perform a round-trip time measurement to confirm the source device is physically close before authorizing the display of protected content (Compl. ¶17, 21-22).
    • A screenshot from TCL’s website shows the user interface of the accused TCL 55R617 television, highlighting its 4K Ultra HD capability and access to various streaming services (Compl. p. 3, ¶7).
    • The complaint positions the accused products as highly successful in the market, citing TCL's claim to be "America's Fastest-Growing TV Brand" and asserting these patented features enhance customer demand (Compl. ¶5-6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’152 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 16) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a display device having a display housing including reflective surfaces and a top opening through which a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panel is backlit The accused TCL TV is a display device with a housing that includes reflective surfaces and a top opening for backlighting the LCD panel. ¶52 col. 3:19-24
an array of substantially identical light emitting diodes (LEDs), arranged in a rectangular array The accused TV allegedly contains LEDs arranged in a rectangular array on a reflective bottom surface inside the housing. ¶52, ¶14(2) col. 3:3-5; Fig. 5
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 a specific LED-to-LED pitch of approximately 52 mm, resulting in a height-to-pitch ratio of approximately 0.37. ¶14(4-5) col. 3:52-56
a diffuser above the LEDs for providing diffused light to an LCD panel The accused devices are alleged to include a diffuser to provide diffused light to the LCD panel. ¶51 col. 3:5-8
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The complaint provides precise physical dimensions for the accused TV’s backlight (52 mm pitch, 0.37 ratio). A central evidentiary question will be whether discovery and expert analysis confirm that these measurements are accurate and representative of the accused product line.
    • Scope Question: While the alleged ratio of 0.37 falls squarely within the claimed range, the term "approximately" provides some latitude. The primary dispute, however, is more likely to be factual regarding the device's actual physical construction rather than a legal dispute over the scope of "approximately."

’977 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 26) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
sending a certificate to a first device... The accused TV (second device/HDCP receiver) allegedly sends its public certificate to the source (first device/HDCP transmitter) during the HDCP 2.x "Authentication and Key Exchange" stage. ¶62, ¶16(23-24) col. 4:45-54
receiving a first signal from the first device after the first device determines... the second device is compliant... wherein the second signal is derived using a secret known by the first device After verifying the TV's certificate, the source device allegedly sends a signal (an encrypted message with a master key, km). This km is alleged to be the claimed "secret." ¶16(27)-¶17(6) col. 4:1-4
sending a second signal to the first device after receiving the first signal The accused TV allegedly sends a second signal back to the source device as part of the HDCP "locality check" protocol. ¶17(7) col. 4:5-13
generating a secure authenticated channel using the secret The devices allegedly use the shared secret (km) to generate a secure channel for transmitting content. ¶18(1-2) col. 4:55-59
receiving... protected content after the first device determines that the... time between... transmission... and receipt... is less than a predetermined time The source device allegedly allows content transmission only after the HDCP locality check confirms the round-trip time is within a predefined interval (e.g., 20 ms). ¶17(14-23) col. 4:5-13
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that the HDCP 2.x standard, as implemented by TCL, practices every step of the claimed method. A key technical question will be whether the complex sequence of messages in the HDCP protocol (e.g., AKE, Locality Check with L' and L signals) maps directly onto the more streamlined "first signal" and "second signal" exchange recited in the claim.
    • Scope Question: A potential point of dispute is whether the various keys and values exchanged during the HDCP handshake (e.g., the master key km) meet the definition of the "secret" as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’152 Patent:

  • The Term: "a ratio of the height to a pitch of the LEDs is between approximately 0.3 to 1.2"
  • Context and Importance: This numerical range is the central technical limitation that defines the invention's contribution over prior art. The infringement case for this patent depends entirely on whether the physical structure of the accused televisions falls within this dimensional constraint.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "approximately" itself implies that the numerical bounds are not rigid and are intended to cover minor variations. Practitioners may argue this term was intended to prevent competitors from avoiding infringement by making trivial deviations from the stated 0.3 and 1.2 limits.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific working example with a height of 40 mm and a pitch of 50 mm, yielding a ratio of 0.8, which is comfortably within the claimed range (’152 Patent, col. 3:56-62). A party might argue that the term "approximately" should be construed in light of this specific, successful embodiment.

For the ’977 Patent:

  • The Term: "a time between a transmission of the first signal and receipt of the second signal by the first device"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the round-trip time measurement that enables the patented locality check. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on mapping the timing verification procedure within the HDCP 2.x protocol to this specific claim language.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language is functional, describing the measurement of an interval between a sent signal and a received signal. The patent describes the object as performing a "secure transfer of content within a limited distance" (’977 Patent, col. 2:38-42), suggesting the specific mechanism is less important than the overall function of verifying proximity via a time measurement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself details a multi-step process for the HDCP locality check involving several signals (Compl. ¶17). Practitioners may focus on whether this complex protocol constitutes "a transmission of the first signal and receipt of the second signal" or if it is a fundamentally different, multi-stage process that falls outside the scope of the claim's simpler language.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the '977 and '564 patents (Compl. ¶63-64, 81-82). Inducement is based on allegations that TCL provides user manuals, advertising, and software that instruct and encourage customers to use the HDCP 2.x functionality, thereby directly infringing the method claims. Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the hardware and software used to perform the secure distance measurement are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. For the '152 Patent, it is based on alleged pre-suit notice via correspondence beginning in February 2012 (Compl. ¶54). For the '977 and '564 Patents, willfulness is based on alleged notice of the parent '939 patent in January 2017, with the complaint asserting that TCL knew or should have known of the subsequently issued continuation patents (Compl. ¶72, 90). The allegations of a long refusal to take a license despite multiple communications are central to the willfulness claim.

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of physical verification: does an empirical analysis of the accused TCL televisions confirm the specific physical backlight geometry (i.e., a height-to-pitch ratio between approximately 0.3 and 1.2) required by the ’152 patent?
  • A central issue of claim construction will be one of protocol-to-claim mapping: do the multi-stage authentication and locality check procedures of the standard HDCP 2.x protocol align with the specific sequence of "first signal" and "second signal" exchanges recited in the claims of the '977 and '564 patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • A critical question for damages will be one of culpability and knowledge: can Philips establish that TCL’s alleged infringement was willful, particularly given the complaint’s narrative of pre-suit notice dating back many years, potentially exposing TCL to a risk of enhanced damages?