DCT

1:11-cv-01637

LG Display Co Ltd v. Obayashi Seikou Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:11-cv-01637, D.D.C., 09/09/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants' alleged activities directed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which is located in the District of Columbia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misappropriated its proprietary LCD technology, wrongfully obtained U.S. patents on that technology, and have refused to transfer ownership despite a prior settlement agreement and a final judgment from the Korean Supreme Court.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to electrode structures in active-matrix Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels, designed to improve viewing angles and reduce power consumption.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a long history between the parties, alleging that a 2003 U.S. lawsuit was dismissed based on a 2004 settlement agreement in which Defendants promised to transfer the patents. Following Defendants' alleged failure to comply, Plaintiff initiated litigation in Korea, which culminated in an April 2011 Korean Supreme Court judgment ordering Defendants to transfer ownership of the patents to Plaintiff. This U.S. action seeks, among other things, to enforce that foreign judgment.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1991-04-20 Defendant Tanaka's employment at LG Display began
1995-01-01 (or earlier) Plaintiff's R&D on the at-issue LCD technology began
1996-04-16 Priority Date for '763 and '980 Patents
1998-06-15 Defendant Tanaka's employment at LG Display ended
2001-04-07 Priority Date for '049 Patent
2001-09-11 '763 Patent Issued
2003-01-01 (approx.) Defendant Obayashi sent warning letter to Plaintiff re: '763 Patent
2003-10-01 (approx.) Plaintiff filed first D.D.C. declaratory judgment action
2004-04-01 (approx.) Parties reached Settlement Agreement
2004-09-09 First D.D.C. action dismissed without prejudice
2006-02-14 '049 Patent Issued
2006-08-29 '980 Patent Issued
2006-10-20 Plaintiff initiated litigation in Seoul, Korea
2009-01-21 Korean High Court ordered patent ownership transfer
2011-04-28 Korean Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment
2011-09-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,288,763 - "Liquid crystal display device having comblike bent interdigital electrodes," Issued Sep. 11, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional "transverse electric field" LCDs where the viewing angle performance is highly sensitive to the "pretilt angle" of the liquid crystals. This sensitivity forces the use of specialized alignment films and liquid crystals that are incompatible with the more common "vertical electric field" manufacturing lines, thereby reducing production efficiency ('763 Patent, col. 1:27-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes forming the pixel and common electrodes in a "zigzag" or bent shape instead of a straight line. This bent structure causes liquid crystal molecules within a single pixel to rotate in two opposing directions when an electric field is applied. This dual-rotation effect stabilizes the viewing characteristics, making them less dependent on the pretilt angle and allowing for greater manufacturing flexibility ('763 Patent, col. 2:41-58; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution allows manufacturers to potentially use the same alignment films and liquid crystal materials for different types of display systems, which could result in a dramatic increase in production efficiency ('763 Patent, col. 2:59-col. 3:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint seeks correction of inventorship for the "inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit" generally, without specifying claims (Compl. ¶43). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

  • An active matrix liquid crystal display device with a liquid crystal layer having a positive dielectric constant.
  • Two sets of interdigitally aligned pixel electrodes, each having a comb-like shape.
  • An active element connecting the electrodes to scanning and video signal lines.
  • Each pixel electrode is inclined in first and second directions to form a "zigzag shape" that is symmetrical relative to the liquid crystal alignment direction.
  • The angle of inclination for the zigzag shape is between plus 1-30 degrees and minus 1-30 degrees relative to the alignment direction.

U.S. Patent No. 6,999,049 - "Liquid crystal display device and drive method thereof," Issued Feb. 14, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent explains that in conventional transverse field LCDs, improving the aperture ratio (and thus brightness) by increasing the distance between electrodes requires a significant increase in the driving voltage. Higher voltages lead to more expensive driver integrated circuits (ICs), higher power consumption, and signal integrity issues like crosstalk between pixels ('049 Patent, col. 1:35-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a novel driving method using two separate common electrodes within each pixel, each supplied with a different, alternating voltage. The voltage that drives the liquid crystal is the difference between the video signal and these alternating common electrode voltages. This architecture allows a sufficient electric field to be generated across the liquid crystal layer with a much smaller video signal voltage swing, which the patent states can be reduced to about one-third of the conventional requirement ('049 Patent, col. 2:13-21, col. 7:48-62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach directly addresses the power consumption and cost limitations of high-resolution LCDs by drastically reducing the required drive voltage, which can lower overall power draw, reduce driver IC cost, and improve display quality by mitigating crosstalk ('049 Patent, col. 7:57-col. 8:3).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claim 1 is representative and includes these essential elements:

  • An active matrix type liquid crystal display device with a video signal line, a scanning line, and a liquid crystal drive electrode.
  • Two common electrodes running in parallel with one another within a pixel.
  • The two common electrodes are electrically separated from one another and are "respectively provided with different voltages."
  • One of the common electrodes is located adjacent to the scanning line, and the two common electrodes are parallel to the liquid crystal drive electrode.

U.S. Patent No. 7,098,980 - "Liquid crystal display device comprising pixel and common electrodes inclined in first and second directions to form a zigzag shape which is symmetrical relative to alignment direction of liquid crystal," Issued Aug. 29, 2006

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the same fundamental problem as the '763 patent: improving viewing angle characteristics by using bent, zigzag-shaped electrodes ('980 Patent, col. 1:17-22). The key distinction is that the '980 patent is directed to systems using liquid crystals with negative dielectric anisotropy and claims a different angular range for the bent electrodes (60 to 120 degrees, excluding 90 degrees), whereas the '763 patent is for positive dielectric anisotropy and claims a 1-30 degree range ('980 Patent, col. 6:1-10).

Asserted Claims

The complaint makes general allegations regarding the "inventions disclosed and claimed" in the patent (Compl. ¶55).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges Defendants' wrongful ownership and licensing of the patent itself, not infringement by a specific product feature (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 78).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not accuse a specific product or service of infringement. The dispute centers on the ownership of the '763, '049, and '980 patents themselves. The "accused instrumentality" is Defendants' alleged wrongful assertion of ownership and monetization of these patents. The complaint alleges that before this dispute, Defendant Obayashi's business was the manufacture of die sets for metal stamping and had no connection to LCD technology (Compl. ¶27). It further alleges that Defendants have received or are poised to receive substantial compensation from third parties for licensing or transferring rights under the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶32, ¶78).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of patent infringement by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. The core of the lawsuit is a dispute over ownership and inventorship of the patents-in-suit. Therefore, an infringement analysis is not applicable.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the complaint does not allege patent infringement, claim construction is not a central issue at this stage of the proceedings. The dispute focuses on extra-patent questions of inventorship, ownership, and enforceability of prior agreements and judgments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Correction of Inventorship (Count I): The complaint alleges that employees of LG Display are the true inventors of the subject matter claimed in the patents-in-suit and that they had an obligation to assign these inventions to LG Display (Compl. ¶43). It asserts that the named inventor, Naoto Hirota, was designated "through error" and that this error arose "without any deceptive intention on the part of the LG Display employee(s) who invented the claimed subject matter," language that tracks the requirements for a correction of inventorship claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256 (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45).
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgment (Count II): Plaintiff seeks enforcement of a final judgment from the Korean Supreme Court, which allegedly affirmed a lower court order compelling Defendants Obayashi and Tanaka to transfer ownership of the patents-in-suit to LG Display (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 53). The complaint argues that under the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Between the United States and the Republic of Korea, the Korean judgment is entitled to full faith and credit (Compl. ¶52).
  • Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (Count V): The complaint alleges that Defendant Tanaka, a former employee of LG Display, breached his confidentiality obligations by disclosing LG Display's proprietary trade secrets related to LCD technology to the other Defendants (Compl. ¶69). It is alleged that Defendants then used these misappropriated trade secrets to prepare and file the patent applications that led to the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶69).
  • Promissory Estoppel (Count IV): This claim arises from the 2004 Settlement Agreement in which Defendants allegedly promised to transfer ownership of the patents. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff reasonably relied on this promise when it agreed to dismiss a prior 2003 lawsuit, and was subsequently harmed when Defendants failed to perform (Compl. ¶¶ 60-62).
  • Other State and Common Law Claims: The complaint also includes counts for a declaratory judgment of ownership (Count III), conversion (Count VI), and unjust enrichment (Count VII), all predicated on the central allegation that Defendants wrongfully appropriated and profited from intellectual property that rightfully belongs to LG Display (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 74, 83).

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

This case appears to turn on questions of fact and law that are antecedent to a typical patent infringement dispute. The central issues for the court will likely be:

  • A primary question of inventorship and ownership: Can LG Display produce sufficient factual evidence to overcome the presumption of validity and prove that its employees, not the named inventor Naoto Hirota, conceived of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit? The outcome of the trade secret and conversion claims hinges on this factual determination.
  • A key question of international comity and law: Will a U.S. court recognize and enforce the Korean Supreme Court's judgment ordering the transfer of title for U.S. patents? This will involve an analysis of the relevant treaty and principles of judicial comity for foreign judgments.
  • An ancillary question of equity: Independent of the Korean judgment, do the facts surrounding the 2004 settlement agreement and the dismissal of the prior U.S. lawsuit create an enforceable obligation for Defendants to transfer the patents under the doctrine of promissory estoppel?