DCT

8:16-cv-00545

Nichia Corp v. Vizio Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:16-cv-00545, C.D. Cal., 03/23/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant VIZIO, Inc.'s principal place of business being located within the Central District of California and because VIZIO has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LED televisions infringe four patents related to the fundamental technology for producing white light using blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and phosphors.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue, combining a blue LED with a wavelength-converting phosphor, is a foundational method for creating the white-light LEDs that serve as the backlights for the vast majority of modern LCD televisions and displays.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, or any prior licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-07-29 Earliest Priority Date for all four patents-in-suit
2010-12-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,855,092 Issues
2011-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959 Issues
2011-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 Issues
2012-11-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 Issues
2016-03-23 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959 - “Liquid Crystal Display and Back Light Having a Light Emitting Diode”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959, issued March 8, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty in creating a satisfactory white light source using LEDs. Prior methods using three separate R, G, and B LED components were complex, suffered from inconsistent color mixing, and could experience color shifts over time due to the different temperature and aging characteristics of the various semiconductor materials (Compl. ¶7; '959 Patent, col. 1:49-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a more elegant solution: a single light emitting diode that combines a blue light-emitting semiconductor chip with a phosphor material. The phosphor absorbs a portion of the blue light and re-emits it at a longer, different wavelength (e.g., yellowish light). The unabsorbed blue light from the chip then mixes with the yellowish light from the phosphor to produce white light, creating a continuous light spectrum from a single, compact device ('959 Patent, col. 2:25-34; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This "blue LED plus phosphor" architecture provided a cost-effective, reliable, and compact way to generate white light, which was a critical step in enabling the widespread replacement of older Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (CCFL) backlights in LCDs with more efficient and thinner LED-based systems ('959 Patent, col. 1:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9 (Compl. ¶8).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A liquid crystal display comprising a back light, liquid crystal, and a color filter.
    • The back light’s light emitting diode includes an LED chip, a transparent material covering the chip, and a phosphor contained within the transparent material.
    • The LED chip emits light with a peak in the blue range (420 to 490 nm).
    • The phosphor emits light with a peak in the yellow-green range (530 to 570 nm) with a spectral tail extending beyond 700 nm.
    • The spectra from the chip and phosphor overlap to create a continuous combined spectrum.
    • A structural limitation requiring the concentration of the phosphor to be greater in the vicinity of the LED chip than it is at the surface of the transparent material.

U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 - “Light Emitting Device and Display”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631, issued March 29, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of creating white light from LEDs that has a desirable color quality. Simply mixing two colors can produce a functional white light, but achieving a specific color temperature (e.g., "warm white" or "cool white") that appears natural requires precise control over the final combined color spectrum ('631 Patent, col. 2:35-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a light emitting device where the specific blue color from the LED component and the specific yellowish color from the phosphor are chosen such that a line connecting their respective points on a chromaticity diagram falls "substantially along a black body radiation locus." This locus represents the color of an ideal incandescent light source at various temperatures, ensuring the resulting white light has a natural-looking color temperature ('631 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 16).
  • Technical Importance: This focus on color science allowed LED manufacturers to create white light sources that could be tailored to specific applications, such as high-quality television backlights or general illumination, making LEDs a viable replacement for traditional incandescent and fluorescent lighting ('631 Patent, col. 12:55-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶14).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A light emitting device comprising a light emitting component and a phosphor.
    • The phosphor absorbs a portion of the light from the component and emits light at a different wavelength.
    • A "straight line connecting a point of chromaticity corresponding to a spectrum generated by the light emitting component and a point of chromaticity corresponding to a spectrum generated by the phosphor is substantially along a black body radiation locus."

U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 - “Light Emitting Device and Display”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375, issued November 13, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for manufacturing a white-light emitting device. The method involves preparing a blue-light emitting component (using a gallium nitride-based semiconductor) and preparing a yellow-light emitting phosphor, where the selection of the phosphor is controlled based on the specific emission wavelength of the blue-light component to achieve a desired white color when combined ('375 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 4 (a method claim) is asserted (Compl. ¶20).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the LEDs incorporated in the accused televisions are manufactured according to the patented method (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,855,092 - “Device or Emitting White-Color Light”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,855,092, issued December 21, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a device for emitting white light that includes not only the blue LED chip and phosphor combination, but also the control circuitry for driving it. The invention specifies a control unit that converts an input to pulse signals and a driver that uses these pulse signals to operate the LED chip, wherein the brightness of the emitted white light is controlled by the width of the pulses (a technique known as Pulse Width Modulation, or PWM) ('092 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶28).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused televisions incorporate "LEDs, control units, and drivers" that practice the claimed invention (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • VIZIO’s D-Series 28" Class Full-Array LED Television (D28hn-D1) and VIZIO’s E-Series 60" Class Full Array LED Smart Television (E60-C3) (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as televisions that "incorporate light emitting diodes ('LEDs') in a liquid crystal display" (Compl. ¶9). The use of the term "Full-Array" indicates a specific backlight architecture where LEDs are distributed across the entire area behind the LCD panel, as opposed to only along the edges. For the '092 patent, the allegations extend to the "control units, and drivers" used to operate the LEDs (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the accused products or their market positioning.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only conclusory allegations of infringement, stating that the accused products "incorporate" LEDs or control systems "in a manner that satisfies the limitations" of the asserted claims without providing specific factual support for how each claim element is met.

’959 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A liquid crystal display comprising: a back light having a light emitting diode; a liquid crystal...; and a color filter The accused products are liquid crystal display televisions that incorporate LEDs. ¶9 col. 22:1-4
said light emitting diode comprising: an LED chip, a transparent material covering said LED chip, and a phosphor contained in said transparent material... The complaint alleges the LEDs in the accused televisions satisfy the limitations of the claim. ¶9 col. 10:27-42
wherein said LED chip emits light having a spectrum with a peak in the range from 420 to 490 nm... The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding the emission spectrum of the LED chips in the accused products. ¶9 col. 22:11-12
said phosphor emits light having a spectrum with a peak in the range from 530 to 570 nm and a tail continuing beyond 700 nm... The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding the emission spectrum of the phosphors used in the accused products. ¶9 col. 22:12-15
wherein a concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of said LED chip is larger than a concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of the surface... The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding the physical distribution or concentration of the phosphor in the accused LEDs. ¶9 col. 10:52-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory. A central point of contention will be whether the plaintiff can produce evidence that the LEDs in VIZIO’s televisions meet the specific quantitative limitations of claim 1, such as the peak emission wavelengths for both the LED chip and the phosphor.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical dispute may arise over the final limitation concerning the phosphor concentration gradient. Proving infringement of this element would require detailed physical analysis of the LEDs used in the accused products to determine if the phosphor is distributed in the claimed non-uniform manner.

’631 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A light emitting device, comprising: a light emitting component; and a phosphor... The accused televisions incorporate LEDs, which are light emitting devices containing a light emitting component and a phosphor. ¶15 col. 9:16-25
wherein a straight line connecting a point of chromaticity corresponding to a spectrum generated by the light emitting component and a point of chromaticity...is substantially along a black body radiation locus... The complaint alleges the LEDs in the accused televisions satisfy this limitation, but provides no specific chromaticity data or analysis of how the resulting light aligns with the claimed locus. ¶15 col. 24:32-38
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on the construction of "substantially along a black body radiation locus." The parties may dispute how much deviation from the ideal locus is permissible before a device falls outside the scope of the claim.
    • Technical Questions: A factual dispute will likely concern the actual color coordinates of the light produced by the component LEDs and phosphors in the accused televisions. This would require spectroradiometric measurements and expert analysis to determine if the resulting chromaticity line meets the claim limitation as properly construed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

From the ’959 Patent

  • The Term: "a concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of said LED chip is larger than a concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of the surface of said transparent material"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific physical structure of the light emitting diode, not merely its function. Infringement depends on this precise non-uniform distribution. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific manufacturing characteristic that may not be present in all white LEDs and could serve as a key non-infringement argument if the accused devices use a uniform phosphor distribution.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a quantitative definition for "larger than" or a precise boundary for the "vicinity" of the chip versus the "vicinity" of the surface. This lack of explicit numerical limits may support a more qualitative interpretation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that this gradient structure can affect durability, noting that a higher concentration near the chip is less affected by moisture, while a lower concentration near the chip is less affected by heat and radiation ('959 Patent, col. 10:52-65). A party could argue the term should be limited to structures that achieve these stated technical benefits.

From the ’631 Patent

  • The Term: "substantially along a black body radiation locus"
  • Context and Importance: This is the central inventive concept recited in claim 1. The entire infringement case for this patent hinges on whether the color properties of the accused LEDs fall within the scope of this phrase. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers a broad range of white LEDs or is limited to those with very specific, high-quality color characteristics.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "substantially" explicitly signals that the claim is not limited to devices whose chromaticity line falls perfectly on the mathematical locus. The patent states that the invention makes it possible to create white light "substantially along the black body radiation locus," suggesting an intended range ('631 Patent, col. 11:61-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 16 of the patent visually depicts the black body radiation locus on a chromaticity diagram. A party could argue that "substantially along" should be defined by the range of color points shown in the patent's own figures and examples, potentially limiting the claim to devices that produce white light within a specific, measurable range of color temperatures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) for all asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶8, 14, 20, 28). However, it does not plead any specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge of the patents and intent to encourage infringement, such as references to VIZIO’s user manuals, marketing materials, or product specifications.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of "willful infringement." It does, however, seek "increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284" (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶c). Such enhanced damages are typically awarded in cases of egregious or willful infringement. The complaint alleges no facts suggesting VIZIO had pre-suit knowledge of the patents, so any basis for enhanced damages would likely have to arise from conduct occurring after the complaint was filed.

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary threshold issue will be whether the plaintiff can substantiate its conclusory allegations with technical evidence. Key questions for discovery will include: Do the LEDs in VIZIO’s televisions actually possess the specific phosphor concentration gradient required by the ’959 patent, and do their color coordinates fall "substantially along a black body radiation locus" as claimed by the ’631 patent?

  2. Claim Scope and Construction: The case will likely feature a significant dispute over claim construction. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "substantially along a black body radiation locus"? The outcome will determine whether the ’631 patent covers a wide swath of modern white LEDs or is confined to a narrower set of devices with specific color-quality characteristics.

  3. Basis for Enhanced Damages: A central question for damages will be whether Nichia can develop facts to support its request for enhanced damages. Given the lack of pre-suit notice allegations, the inquiry may focus on whether VIZIO’s litigation conduct or continued sales post-filing could be considered sufficiently egregious to warrant such an award.