DCT

8:21-cv-00011

Display Vectors LLC v. BenQ America Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:21-cv-00011, C.D. Cal., 01/05/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in California, has an established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods and apparatuses for controlling the power supplied to a cooling element to prevent performance degradation.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the control of thermoelectric coolers (Peltier devices), which are used to manage heat in compact electronic devices, such as printers or computer components.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-04-21 ’318 Patent Priority Date
2005-04-12 ’318 Patent Application Filing Date
2010-05-11 ’318 Patent Issue Date
2021-01-05 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,318 - "Cooling apparatus, cooling method, program, computer readable information recording medium and electronic apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,712,318, "Cooling apparatus, cooling method, program, computer readable information recording medium and electronic apparatus," issued May 11, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how conventional methods of driving a Peltier cooling device, which involve sudden on/off power application or large changes in voltage, can cause a "sharp occurrence of temperature difference" between the device's surfaces. This can lead to "performance degradation" and a shortened operational life for the device (’318 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by changing the driving power supplied to the cooling element in a "step-wise manner" at "predetermined time interval[s]" (’318 Patent, col. 17:18-24). As illustrated in Figures 1 and 3, this is achieved by using a plurality of timer counters (212-1 through 212-n) that control the duration of each discrete power level, thereby creating a gentle, incremental ramp-up or ramp-down of cooling power instead of a sudden change (’318 Patent, col. 5:17-24; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a digitally programmable method for optimizing the cooling control for a specific apparatus, aiming to enhance device longevity and performance stability by avoiding thermal shock (’318 Patent, col. 3:23-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "one or more claims" and the "Exemplary '318 Patent Claims" detailed in an exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • a plurality of timer counters counting respective time durations, in sequence; and
    • a driving power changing part configured to change, in a step-wise manner, a power value of the driving power supplied to the cooling element from the power supply unit,
    • by a predetermined power value at each predetermined time interval,
    • with the power value being held at substantially constant levels in respective duty steps of corresponding time durations,
    • wherein for each duty step, an output time interval is controlled based on an output of a corresponding one of the plurality of time counters.

The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers broadly to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count below" and in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). However, no such charts or exhibits are included within the body of the filed complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '318 Patent" (Compl. ¶1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in charts included as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, the specific factual basis for the infringement allegations is not available for analysis. The complaint's narrative theory is limited to the assertion that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the unspecified "Exemplary '318 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "plurality of timer counters"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is a central structural element of the claimed invention. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether an accused device must have multiple, distinct counter modules/routines as depicted in the patent’s embodiments, or if a single, re-configurable timer can meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may argue for a narrower construction based on Figure 3 and its description, which explicitly show separate blocks for "TIMER COUNTER (1)," "TIMER COUNTER (2)," through "TIMER COUNTER (N)" (212-1, 212-2, 212-n), each corresponding to a step in the power change sequence (’318 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 6:10-15). The claim language tying "each duty step" to an output of "a corresponding one of the plurality of time counters" may further support an interpretation requiring distinct counters for distinct steps (’318 Patent, col. 17:28-31).
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term only requires the functional presence of more than one timing operation in sequence, regardless of whether a single piece of hardware (e.g., a single CPU timer register that is repeatedly reset) or multiple hardware modules are used to achieve this.

  • The Term: "step-wise manner"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core function of the "driving power changing part" in claim 1. The dispute will likely center on what types of power modulation fall within the scope of "step-wise," particularly when compared to systems that might use continuous or dynamic feedback-based adjustments.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The exemplary embodiments consistently illustrate a specific type of step-wise change: a series of discrete, uniform increments in voltage or PWM duty that occur at fixed time intervals (e.g., 3V increments every 10-20 seconds) (’318 Patent, Fig. 1; Fig. 4). A party could argue the term is limited to such pre-programmed, regular progressions.
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly require the steps to be of uniform size or duration. The specification describes the goal as preventing the driving voltage from being "rapidly changed" or changed "in a step manner," which could be interpreted as a prohibition on a single, large jump in power rather than a limitation on the specific pattern of smaller steps (’318 Patent, col. 1:64-65).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. The prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" to warrant an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not allege facts to support a claim for enhanced damages for willfulness under § 284 (Compl. p. 4).

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

  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold procedural issue is whether the complaint, which relies entirely on references to an unprovided exhibit to articulate its infringement theory, meets the plausibility standards for patent infringement pleading under Iqbal/Twombly. The absence of factual allegations identifying an accused product and mapping its features to claim elements presents a potential point of challenge for the defendant.
  • Claim Construction: The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: how should the term "plurality of timer counters" be construed? The court’s interpretation—whether it requires physically or logically distinct counters for each power step as shown in the patent's figures, or if it can be met by a single, re-programmed timer executing sequential timing functions—will be critical in determining the breadth of the patent and its applicability to modern, processor-controlled cooling systems.
  • Technical Operation: Should the case proceed to discovery, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional comparison: do the accused products, in fact, alter power in a "step-wise manner" by holding "substantially constant" power levels for discrete time intervals as claimed, or do they employ a different control strategy, such as a continuous feedback loop, that may not align with the literal claim language?