DCT

3:23-cv-00121

FlatFrog Laboratories Ab v. Chemtronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00121, S.D. Cal., 01/23/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ business activities in the United States, including California. Chemtronics USA, Inc. is a California corporation, and the complaint alleges the Defendants work in concert to design, manufacture, and market the accused products for sale in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ glass and touch modules, supplied for use in Samsung’s Flip series of interactive displays, infringe three patents related to methods and assemblies for controlling the curvature of touch-sensitive glass plates.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns optical touch-screen technology for large interactive displays, where precise control over the glass panel's shape is critical for touch accuracy.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to the CEO of Chemtronics Co., Ltd. through European, Korean, and U.S. counsel in June, July, and September 2022, notifying Defendants of the alleged infringement before filing suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-12-07 U.S. Patent Nos. 10,775,935 & 11,281,335 Priority Date
2017-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,281,338 Priority Date
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,775,935 Issued
2022-03-22 U.S. Patent No. 11,281,335 Issued
2022-03-22 U.S. Patent No. 11,281,338 Issued
2022-06-01 Plaintiff's counsel allegedly sent first cease-and-desist letter
2022-07-01 Plaintiff's counsel allegedly sent second cease-and-desist letter
2022-09-01 Plaintiff's counsel allegedly sent third cease-and-desist letter
2022-09-22 Plaintiff’s U.S. counsel allegedly sent cease-and-desist letter
2023-01-23 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,775,935 - "Touch Device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of uncontrolled "warpage"—twists or curves—in the glass plates used for optical touch systems. Such distortions can impair touch accuracy by interfering with the light paths that travel just above the glass surface (Compl. ¶5; ’935 Patent, col. 1:56-64). Conventional solutions like using pre-bent glass are described as expensive, fragile, and unsuitable for designs with minimal borders (’935 Patent, col. 2:7-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical assembly for holding a glass plate and actively controlling its curvature. The assembly uses a system of frame elements and spacing elements that can apply torque to the plate's support structure, tilting it to induce a specific, controlled, and often concave, curvature across the touch surface (’935 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:21-34). This allows for precise control of the glass shape without requiring bulky frames or contact with the center of the plate (’935 Patent, col. 3:21-24).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables the production of large, accurate, and cost-effective optical touch screens by precisely managing the light path very close to the touch surface, which improves touch detection sensitivity (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claim 7, which incorporates independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’935 Patent recites the following essential elements:
    • A touch sensing apparatus comprising a display panel, a plate with a touch surface, emitters, and detectors.
    • A frame assembly with a first frame element to support the display panel and a second frame element arranged around the plate's periphery.
    • The plate has a "first curvature" when not installed in the frame assembly.
    • The plate has a "second curvature" along its width and length when it is installed in the frame assembly.
    • The "second curvature" is "parabolic."
    • The "first curvature" is "concave."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims during the litigation (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1).

U.S. Patent No. 11,281,335 - "Touch Device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’335 patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’935 patent: uncontrolled warpage in glass plates for optical touch systems that can block light paths and impair accuracy (’335 Patent, col. 1:56-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a touch sensing apparatus with a frame assembly that holds a plate (e.g., glass) and a display panel. The core of the solution is the resulting geometry of the assembled device, where the touch surface is curved relative to a flat plane according to a "concave curve function," and importantly, "all of the edges of the top surface of the plate are curved." This structure provides a precisely controlled, non-flat surface for improved optical touch performance (’335 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-64).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve the precision, compactness, and cost-effectiveness of large-format optical touch screens by ensuring the glass surface has a specific, controlled, and fully curved geometry (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’335 Patent recites the following essential elements:
    • A touch sensing apparatus with a long edge and a short edge, comprising a display panel, a plate with a touch surface, emitters, and detectors.
    • A frame assembly.
    • The touch surface is "curved relative to a flat plane."
    • The distance between a curved line on the touch surface and a straight line on the flat plane "varies according to a concave curve function."
    • "all of the edges of the top surface of the plate are curved."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims during the litigation (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1).

U.S. Patent No. 11,281,338 - "Touch Sensing Apparatus and Method for Assembly"

  • Multi-Patent Capsule:
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses challenges in assembling optical touch systems, particularly the alignment of optical components. It discloses a touch sensing apparatus featuring a support structure (carrier) and a "sealing window" that fits between the carrier and the touch panel to protect and precisely align the emitters and detectors, which are mounted on a substrate (’338 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-47). The invention aims to create a robust assembly that ensures accurate alignment and protects sensitive components from contaminants (Compl. ¶47).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Chemtronics module" used in the Accused Products infringes this patent (Compl. ¶2, ¶50-51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Chemtronics module," which is a "glass and touch module" supplied for assembly into the 85" Samsung Flip 2, 75" and 85" Samsung Flip 3, and 75" and 85" Samsung Flip 4 interactive displays (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Chemtronics module consists of at least a metal frame, a touch kit, and a cover glass (Compl. ¶2). This module is described as a "key component" that Chemtronics supplies to global manufacturers, including Samsung, for use in interactive whiteboards (Compl. ¶16-17).
  • The final Accused Products are large-format interactive displays, or "touch screens," that allow users to write or interact with a finger or passive pen (Compl. ¶4, ¶26). The complaint identifies the 75" Samsung Flip 3 interactive display as representative of all Accused Products for its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶27, ¶39, ¶51).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products meet all the elements of the asserted claims but references infringement mappings in Exhibits D, E, and F, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶26, ¶38, ¶50). The complaint does not contain a narrative infringement theory or detailed claim charts. The analysis below is therefore based on the high-level allegations and the patent claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’935 Patent will be whether the accused touch screens, when installed, possess a "parabolic" curvature. The dispute may focus on whether the product's actual shape, with any manufacturing tolerances, meets the definition of "parabolic" as used in the patent. For the ’335 Patent, a key dispute may arise over the term "all of the edges... are curved," as any straight portion of an edge could potentially defeat a literal infringement claim.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific technical mismatches. An evidentiary question for the ’935 Patent will be how Plaintiff intends to prove the plate’s "first curvature" in its uninstalled state, as required by claim 1. For the ’338 Patent, a key technical question will be whether the accused "Chemtronics module" contains a structure that meets the claim limitations of a "sealing element" with a "first surface" and "second surface" configured in the specific manner recited.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "parabolic" (’935 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement allegation for the ’935 Patent, as it defines the required shape of the touch surface when installed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a mathematically precise parabolic shape is required or if a shape that is merely substantially or functionally parabolic falls within the claim scope.

    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification acknowledges that real-world touch surfaces may deviate from ideal mathematical curves, describing an example where a "real touch surface is asymmetrically warped" compared to a "mathematically defined parabolic curve" (’935 Patent, col. 18:45-56).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific mathematical formula to model the touch surface curvature, stating "The curvature of the touch surface may therefore be modelled as: F(x)=-a+cx²" (’935 Patent, col. 16:50-52). This could support an argument that "parabolic" refers to this specific mathematical form.

  • The Term: "all of the edges of the top surface of the plate are curved" (’335 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The word "all" is an absolute term that creates a potentially high bar for infringement. The defendant’s case may hinge on demonstrating that any portion of any edge of the accused plate is straight.

    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's general purpose is to control curvature and avoid uncontrolled warpage. A party might argue that in this context, "all... are curved" should be interpreted to mean the edges are intentionally and generally curved as part of the design, not that they must be perfectly and continuously curved without any microscopic straight segments.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "all" suggests no exceptions. Figures in the patent, such as Figure 11a, depict a surface with continuously curved edges, which could be used to argue for a strict interpretation requiring the entirety of every edge to be curved.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. The allegations state that Defendants knew of the patents and intentionally induced infringement by designing, manufacturing, and supplying the Chemtronics module to customers like Samsung for assembly into the Accused Products (Compl. ¶28, ¶40, ¶52). It further alleges the module is not a staple article of commerce and lacks substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶29, ¶41, ¶53).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It specifically cites a series of cease-and-desist letters sent to the CEO of Chemtronics by Plaintiff's European, Korean, and U.S. counsel between June and September 2022 (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶30, ¶42, ¶54).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "parabolic" and "all... edges... are curved" be construed to cover the real-world geometry of a mass-produced touch panel, which may include manufacturing tolerances and deviations from a perfect mathematical ideal, or will a stricter construction prevail?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: what technical evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused Chemtronics modules, when assembled into the final Samsung displays, actually create the specific and complex curvatures required by the asserted claims?
  • A central question for damages will be willfulness: did Defendants' alleged continued supply of the accused modules after receiving multiple pre-suit notifications of infringement constitute the type of egregious conduct necessary to justify an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?