DCT

2:23-cv-03478

Polaris PowerLED Tech LLC v. Vizio Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-03478, C.D. Cal., 05/08/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on the California headquarters and business operations of Defendant VIZIO and various subsidiaries of the other manufacturing and retail defendants.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that televisions designed by VIZIO, manufactured by Foxconn, TPV, Innolux, and AmTRAN, and sold by retailers including Newegg, infringe a patent related to circuitry for driving LED backlights.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods of controlling power delivery to multiple parallel strings of LEDs in a display backlight to reduce electrical noise and power supply ripple, a technique relevant to modern televisions with full-array local dimming.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that VIZIO's third-party manufacturers, who are also defendants, have agreed to indemnify VIZIO for patent infringement claims related to the products they supply.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-04-08 ’148 Patent Priority Date
2010-11-30 ’148 Patent Issue Date
2023-05-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,843,148 - “Driving Multiple Parallel LEDs With Reduced Power Supply Ripple,” issued November 30, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes an issue with conventional LED drivers used for display backlighting. When multiple parallel strings of LEDs are turned on and off simultaneously to control brightness (a method known as pulse-width modulation, or PWM), the large, instantaneous change in current draw can create significant voltage ripple and noise in the power supply, which can be costly to mitigate and may affect other electronic components (’148 Patent, col. 5:41-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes staggering the timing of the PWM control signals sent to each parallel LED string. While each string is switched on for the same proportion of time (duty cycle) to maintain consistent perceived brightness, the "on" periods for different strings are intentionally out of phase with each other. This spreads the total current draw over time, avoiding a single large current spike and thereby reducing power supply ripple (’148 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:4-13). The specification details an embodiment using a tapped shift register to generate these identical but time-shifted control signals (’148 Patent, Fig. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for smoother power delivery in complex LED backlight systems, easing constraints on the power supply and potentially reducing the need for large, expensive filtering capacitors, which is a significant consideration in designing high-performance consumer electronics like televisions (Compl. ¶77).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶79).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • An LED driver for LEDs in different parallel paths, comprising:
    • a voltage source for the parallel paths;
    • a plurality of current set circuits, one for each parallel path, to control the peak current in that path;
    • a PWM brightness control signal generator configured to create "staggered" PWM signals for the current set circuits; and
    • wherein each current set circuit draws peak current at a duty cycle corresponding to its PWM signal, such that the plurality of circuits conduct current at the same duty cycle but "out of phase with each other."
  • The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶79).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies VIZIO televisions, including specific models from the M-Series, V-Series, and E-Series, such as the M50Q7-J01, V655M-K03, V505M-K09, and E65-F0, as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶80).

Functionality and Market Context

The allegations focus on the products' "signal processing and LED control circuit board," which is said to contain a "multi-channel LED driver" for controlling individual strings of LEDs in the television's backlight (Compl. ¶82). This circuitry is alleged to enable features like "full array backlight features as well as local dimming zones" (Compl. ¶82). The complaint asserts a complex supply chain where various defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and sell these televisions in the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 52, 60, 66, 73).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’148 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a voltage source for connection to first ends of LEDs in a plurality of parallel paths The televisions include a power supply configured to provide a regulated voltage (VLED) and current to a plurality of parallel LED strings. ¶¶83-86 col. 7:39-41
a plurality of current set circuits, one current set circuit per parallel path, each current set circuit controlling a peak current through one or more LEDs connected in each parallel path The LED control circuit contains specific driver chips (e.g., Dialog AS3824, Novatek NT50511S) and related circuitry that constitute a current set circuit for each parallel path of LEDs, controlling the peak current. ¶¶87-90 col. 7:42-46
a pulse-width modulated (PWM) brightness control signal generator connected to the plurality of current set circuits, the brightness control signal generator being configured to generate staggered PWM brightness control signals to the plurality of current set circuits The identified driver chips (e.g., Dialog AS3824) allegedly use multiple PWM signal generators to implement dimming and generate "staggered PWM brightness control signals" that are "out of phase of each other." ¶¶91-94 col. 7:47-51
each current set circuit being configured to draw the peak current ... at a duty cycle substantially corresponding to a duty cycle of a PWM brightness control signal ... such that the plurality of current set circuits conduct current ... at the same duty cycle but out of phase with each other The current set circuits in the accused televisions are alleged to conduct current through their associated LEDs at the same duty cycle but "out of phase with each other." ¶¶95-98 col. 7:52-8:2

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for claim construction will be the meaning of "staggered." The complaint appears to treat "staggered" as synonymous with "out of phase" (Compl. ¶91). The court will have to determine whether the term, as used in the patent, requires a more specific relationship between the signals, potentially informed by the shift-register embodiments described in the specification (’148 Patent, Fig. 2A, col. 6:40-54).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint identifies specific third-party driver chips (e.g., Dialog AS3824, Novatek NT50511S, Power Forest PF7713D) as implementing the claimed functions (Compl. ¶¶ 83, 88, 93). A key factual dispute will be whether these off-the-shelf components, as integrated into the accused televisions, actually operate in the manner required by the claims. For example, evidence will be needed to show that these chips generate signals that are merely "out of phase" or if they meet the potentially narrower definition of "staggered" that may be adopted by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "staggered PWM brightness control signals"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. Its construction will define the scope of infringement. If "staggered" is construed broadly to mean any non-simultaneous, out-of-phase signals, the patent's reach is wider. If it is construed more narrowly to require features of the disclosed embodiments (e.g., identical, time-shifted signals generated by a shift register), the infringement case may be more difficult to prove.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract states that "the application of current to each parallel path is staggered," and the summary explains that the paths are "energized at different times," which may support a broader, functional definition not tied to a specific structure (’148 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:8).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description extensively describes creating the "staggered" signals using a tapped shift register that circulates a binary pattern, resulting in identical but delayed signals (’148 Patent, Fig. 2A, col. 6:40-54). A party may argue that this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "staggered" to this type of implementation.

The Term: "current set circuit"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that specific commercial driver chips and their related circuitry meet this limitation (Compl. ¶¶ 87-90). The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether those identified components fall within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the term functionally as a circuit "controlling a peak current" (’148 Patent, col. 7:44-45). This could be interpreted to encompass any circuit that performs this function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses two specific embodiments for a current set circuit: a current regulator with an op-amp feedback loop (Fig. 5) and a simpler circuit with a resistor and a MOSFET (Fig. 6). A defendant may argue that the term should be interpreted to include features common to these disclosed examples.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain explicit counts for indirect or willful infringement. It does, however, request that the court find the case "exceptional" and award attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 23).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "staggered PWM brightness control signals," which is described in the patent's preferred embodiment through a specific shift-register mechanism, be construed broadly enough to read on the "out of phase" signals allegedly generated by the off-the-shelf driver chips used in the accused televisions?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: assuming a favorable claim construction for the plaintiff, what technical evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the accused driver chips, as implemented in the VIZIO televisions, actually perform the specific functions of generating staggered signals and controlling the current set circuits in the precise manner required by Claim 1?