DCT

1:13-cv-02111

Delaware Display Group LLC v. Sony Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:13-cv-02111, D. Del., 12/31/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Sony entities being subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware, with some incorporated in the state, and by placing products into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase by consumers within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that a wide range of Defendant’s consumer electronics containing Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs) infringe eight patents related to light emitting panel assemblies used for backlighting.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for efficiently distributing and extracting light from a light source across a panel to provide uniform and bright backlighting for displays, a critical component in modern electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are part of a larger patent family sharing an ultimate parent patent. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, many of the asserted patents were the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, resulting in the cancellation of numerous claims, including many of the independent claims of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-06-27 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2004-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 Issues
2007-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 Issues
2008-06-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 Issues
2008-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 Issues
2008-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 Issues
2009-05-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 Issues
2011-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196 Issues
2012-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 Issues
2013-07-26 IDT Patents assigned to Plaintiff Innovative Display Tech
2013-12-20 DDG Patent assigned to Plaintiff Delaware Display Group
2013-12-31 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 - Light Emitting Panel Assemblies, issued June 29, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent aims to improve upon known light emitting panel assemblies by providing "better control of the light output" and enabling "more efficient utilization of light," which results in "greater light output from the panel assemblies" (US6755547B2, col. 1:22-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a backlight assembly that includes a light emitting member and a separate transparent sheet or film placed over it, separated by an air gap. This overlying sheet contains a "pattern of deformities" on one side, such as dots, prisms, or other disruptions. These deformities can be varied in characteristics like density, shape, or size at different locations on the sheet to control the light emitted from the panel, allowing it to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss (’547 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: This method for controlling light extraction allows for the creation of more efficient and uniform backlights, which can enable thinner device profiles and lower power consumption in electronic displays (Compl. ¶ 26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims, instead alleging infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶ 33). Independent Claim 1, which was subsequently cancelled in IPR proceedings, requires:
    • A backlight assembly comprising a light emitting member having at least one light emitting area that emits light.
    • A separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light emitting area with an air gap therebetween.
    • A pattern of deformities on one side of the sheet or film.
    • The deformities varying at different locations on the sheet or film to direct the emitted light.
    • The direction of light produces a desired light output distribution such that the light will pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.
  • The complaint generally alleges infringement of the patent, which may suggest an intent to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 33).

U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 - Light Emitting Panel Assemblies, issued November 27, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like the ’547 Patent, this invention relates to configurations for light emitting panel assemblies that provide better control of light output and more efficient light utilization (’194 Patent, col. 1:24-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a light emitting assembly that includes a panel member, a light source, and at least one film or plate positioned near the panel's light-emitting surface with an air gap in between. A key aspect is that at least one surface of this film has "well defined optical elements or deformities" with reflective or refractive properties that control the emitted light, redirecting it to pass through an LCD with low loss ('194 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a structural basis for producing thin, efficient, and bright backlights for the growing market of LCD-based consumer electronics (Compl. ¶ 26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not assert specific claims (Compl. ¶ 43). Independent Claim 1, which was subsequently cancelled in IPR proceedings, requires:
    • A light emitting assembly comprising at least a light emitting panel member, at least one light source, and at least one film, sheet, plate or substrate.
    • The film is positioned near the light emitting surface with an air gap between it and the panel member.
    • At least one surface of the film has one or more reflective or refractive surfaces.
    • At least one of these surfaces has "well defined optical elements or deformities" for controlling the emitted light.
    • The control is such that at least some light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.
  • The complaint's broad allegations may suggest the right is reserved to assert other available claims (Compl. ¶ 43).

U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 - Light Emitting Panel Assemblies, issued June 10, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a light emitting assembly comprising a tray that forms a cavity or recess containing one or more light sources. A sheet, film, or substrate is positioned over this cavity to control the emitted light. The tray itself is described as acting as a back, side, or edge reflector and may have secondary reflective or refractive surfaces (’177 Patent, Abstract). All independent claims of this patent were subsequently cancelled in IPR proceedings.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶ 53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Sony’s display products with LCDs incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶ 53).

U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 - Light Emitting Panel Assemblies, issued July 29, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a generally planar optical conductor with an input edge that has a greater cross-sectional width than thickness. A light source with a corresponding light output distribution is positioned at this edge. The assembly includes a "transition region" between the light source and the main output region to spread and transmit the light (’660 Patent, Abstract). Some claims of this patent survived subsequent IPR challenges.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶ 63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Sony’s display products with LCDs incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶ 63).

U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 - Light Emitting Panel Assemblies, issued October 14, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a light emitting panel assembly where a panel member is received within a tray or housing. The assembly includes a light source and light-extracting deformities on the panel surface. The tray or housing acts as an end and/or side edge reflector. Several independent claims were subsequently cancelled in IPR proceedings.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶ 73).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Sony’s display products with LCDs incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶ 73).

U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 - Light Emitting Panel Assemblies, issued May 26, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an optical panel with a pattern of light-extracting deformities on one or both sides. A key aspect is that the deformities on one side may be of a different type or shape, or vary in a different manner, than the deformities on the other side (’370 Patent, Abstract). Some claims of this patent survived subsequent IPR challenges.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶ 83).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Sony’s display products with LCDs incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶ 83).

U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196 - Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements, issued March 29, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system comprising a backlight and a separate light redirecting film. The film has a pattern of "individual optical elements of well-defined shape" designed to redistribute the light from the backlight toward a direction normal to the film (’196 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶ 93).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Sony’s display products with LCDs incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶ 93).

U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 - Light Emitting Panel Assemblies, issued July 10, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an assembly where a panel member is contained in a tray or housing. The panel member is characterized as having a greater width than height, and its light input edge has a refractive surface that redirects the light source's output "more in the width direction as the light enters the panel member" (’816 Patent, Abstract). The independent claims of this patent were subsequently cancelled in IPR proceedings.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶ 103).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Sony’s display products with LCDs incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶ 103).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a broad category of "display products that use the fundamental technologies covered by the patents-in-suit" (Compl. ¶ 25). These are alleged to include, but are not limited to, "laptops, desktops, tablets, monitors, televisions, mobile phones, cameras, and video cameras with an LCD" (Compl. ¶ 25). The complaint identifies three exemplary products: the "Mobile Xperia TL phone, the VAIO SVE11135CXW laptop, and the Cyber-shot DSC-W620 camera" (Compl. ¶ 25).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that by incorporating the patented inventions, Sony is able to produce improved products with features such as "thinner displays, and/or displays with a higher light output, a more uniform light output, a lower power requirement, and/or a longer battery life" (Compl. ¶ 26). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the construction or operation of the backlights within the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or reference a claim chart exhibit. The infringement allegations are made in general terms, stating on "information and belief" that the accused products "include all of the limitations of one or more claims" of each respective patent (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 43). The following tables summarize the narrative infringement theory for the lead independent claims of the first two asserted patents.

U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A backlight assembly comprising a light emitting member having at least one light emitting area that emits light that is internally reflected within the light emitting member... The complaint alleges Sony's display products contain a backlight assembly with a light emitting member that internally reflects light (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 33). ¶33 col. 1:15-20
a separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light emitting area with an air gap therebetween, The complaint alleges Sony's display products contain a separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light emitting area with an air gap (Compl. ¶ 33). ¶33 col. 6:27-32
a pattern of deformities on one side of the sheet or film having a width and length that is quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film, The complaint alleges Sony's display products contain a sheet or film with a pattern of small deformities (Compl. ¶ 33). ¶33 col. 4:36-44
the deformities varying at different locations on the sheet or film to direct the light that is emitted by the, light emitting member in different directions to produce a desired light output distribution... The complaint alleges the deformities in Sony's display products vary to direct light and produce a desired output distribution (Compl. ¶ 33). ¶33 col. 5:1-5
...such that the light will pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss. The complaint alleges the resulting light distribution in Sony's display products is suitable for passing through an LCD with low loss (Compl. ¶ 33). ¶33 col. 5:22-28

U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A light emitting assembly comprising at least a light emitting panel member having a light emitting surface, at least one light source, at least one film, sheet, plate or substrate... The complaint alleges Sony's display products contain a light emitting assembly with a panel member, light source, and film/sheet/plate (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 43). ¶43 col. 3:1-7
...positioned near the light emitting surface through which light from the panel member is emitted, and an air gap between the film, sheet, plate or substrate and the panel member, The complaint alleges Sony's display products contain a film positioned near the emitting surface with an air gap (Compl. ¶ 43). ¶43 col. 5:49-54
wherein at least one surface of the film, sheet, plate or substrate has one or more reflective or refractive surfaces... The complaint alleges the film in Sony's display products has reflective or refractive surfaces (Compl. ¶ 43). ¶43 col. 5:3-9
...and at least one of the reflective or refractive surfaces has well defined optical elements or deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss. The complaint alleges the surfaces in Sony's display products have "well defined optical elements or deformities" that control and redirect light for use in an LCD with low loss (Compl. ¶ 43). ¶43 col. 4:45-56

Identified Points of Contention

  • Pleading Sufficiency: The complaint’s reliance on generalized allegations made "upon information and belief," without providing specific factual support mapping accused product features to claim limitations, raises the question of whether the infringement claims meet the plausibility pleading standards required by federal court precedent.
  • Technical Evidence: A fundamental question for the court will be what technical evidence supports the allegation that the accused products, which are complex multi-component devices, actually practice the specific structures claimed in the patents, such as the use of a "separate" film with an "air gap" ('547 Patent) or the presence of "well defined" optical elements ('194 Patent).
  • Viability of Asserted Claims: Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the independent claims analyzed above for both the '547 and '194 patents (along with numerous other claims across the asserted patent portfolio) were cancelled in IPR proceedings. A central legal issue will be the effect of these cancellations on the ongoing litigation and whether Plaintiffs can maintain their action based on any remaining asserted claims that were not invalidated.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’547 Patent:

    • The Term: "a pattern of deformities"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's mechanism for light extraction. The scope of "deformities" will be critical, as Defendant may argue its products' light-guiding features (e.g., textures, lenses, or other structures) do not meet the definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a wide or narrow range of light-extracting technologies are covered.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "deformities or disruptions" broadly as "any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface" and notes they can be produced in various ways, including "a painted pattern, an etched pattern, a machined pattern, a printed pattern, a hot stamped pattern, or a molded pattern" ('547 Patent, col. 4:42-44, 55-59).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent primarily illustrates the deformities as discrete, shaped elements such as "dots, squares, diamonds, ellipses, stars, random shapes" or prismatic surfaces ('547 Patent, col. 5:42-44; Figs. 4a-4d). This could support an argument that the term does not cover continuous or undifferentiated surface texturing.

  • For the ’194 Patent:

    • The Term: "well defined optical elements or deformities"
    • Context and Importance: The qualifier "well defined" is a key potential limitation on the claim scope. The dispute will likely center on what degree of precision, regularity, or intentionality is required for an "optical element" to be considered "well defined."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses creating "random patterns" using techniques like "stochastic print pattern techniques" or "random dot half tones," which may suggest "well defined" does not require geometric perfection or uniformity ('194 Patent, col. 6:2-5).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "well defined" itself, along with figures depicting geometrically regular shapes (e.g., '194 Patent, Figs. 4a-4d), may support a construction that requires the elements to be individually engineered and distinct, rather than a mere surface roughness or random texture.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts induced infringement for each patent-in-suit. The factual basis alleged is that Sony took affirmative steps to encourage infringement by third-party manufacturers, distributors, and consumers. These steps include "creating advertisements that promote the infringing use," establishing distribution channels, and "distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 37, 47).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful infringement." However, it alleges that Sony had knowledge of the patents and its infringement "at least since the filing of this lawsuit" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 36, 46). This forms a basis for potential post-filing willfulness and enhanced damages, which Plaintiffs request in their prayer for relief (Compl. ¶ 112.C).

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

  1. Impact of Post-Filing Invalidations: A threshold and potentially dispositive issue for much of this case is the legal effect of the Inter Partes Review proceedings that cancelled a significant number of asserted claims after the complaint was filed. The key question is whether Plaintiffs' case can proceed on any remaining valid claims and, if so, whether the generalized allegations in the original complaint are sufficient to provide notice of infringement for those specific claims.
  2. Pleading Sufficiency and Evidentiary Basis: A core procedural question is whether the complaint’s formulaic allegations, made on "information and belief" without detailed technical support, state a plausible claim for relief. The court will have to determine if these allegations are sufficient to permit the case to proceed to discovery, where the technical evidence for infringement would be developed.
  3. Claim Scope and Technical Equivalence: For any claims that remain in dispute, a central issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the patents' specific embodiments, such as "pattern of deformities" and "air gap," be construed to cover the potentially different and more technologically advanced light-management systems used in Sony's modern consumer electronics, or is there a fundamental mismatch in structure and operation?