DCT

1:17-cv-00269

Mfg Resources Intl Inc v. Civiq Smartscapes LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00269, D. Del., 03/14/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because each Defendant is a resident of Delaware, organized under its laws, and conducts substantial business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ outdoor and semi-outdoor digital display products infringe seventeen patents related to technologies for cooling electronic displays and managing thermal performance in challenging environmental conditions.
  • Technical Context: The technology domain is outdoor digital signage, a market where display performance and longevity are critically dependent on managing heat generated by the display itself and by solar radiation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit correspondence beginning on May 17, 2016, when Plaintiff notified Defendants' predecessor (Vertigo Digital Displays) of potential infringement. Subsequent notices were sent to the named Defendants. On December 27, 2016, Defendant Civiq Holdings, LLC responded, alleging non-infringement and invalidity of some of Plaintiff's patents. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for Plaintiff's claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-03-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,351,014
2008-05-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patents No. 8,125,163; 8,829,815; 9,030,129; 9,167,655
2008-06-11 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,016,452
2008-08-14 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,767,165
2008-09-09 Priority Date for U.S. Patents No. 8,373,841; 9,089,079
2008-11-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patents No. 8,274,622; 8,482,695; 8,854,572
2009-02-24 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,854,595
209-11-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,313,917
2009-12-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,497,972
2010-05-25 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,448,569
2011-07-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,173,322
2016-05-17 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendants' predecessor, Vertigo Digital Displays
2016-05-24 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant Civiq Smartscapes, LLC
2016-07-07 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant Comark
2016-08-19 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant Civiq Holdings, LLC
2016-12-27 Defendant Civiq Holdings, LLC responds to Plaintiff, alleging non-infringement and invalidity
2017-03-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,854,595 - "Constricted Convection Cooling System for an Electronic Display"

  • Issued: October 7, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of cooling electronic displays, particularly those used outdoors, which are subjected to significant heat from both their own operation (e.g., backlights) and external solar radiation. Traditional cooling systems that attempt to cool the entire interior of a display housing are described as inefficient. (Compl. ¶22; ’595 Patent, col. 1:49-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more targeted cooling method using a "constricted convection plate" positioned behind the display's rear surface. This creates a narrow channel, or gap, through which ambient air is forced or drawn by fans. This "constricted convection" directly cools the posterior surface of the display or its backlight assembly, providing more efficient heat removal where it is most needed. The system may also be combined with a separate, closed-loop gas cooling system for the front display surface. (’595 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-53).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more effective thermal management in large-format outdoor digital displays, enabling them to operate reliably in high-temperature and direct-sunlight conditions where previous cooling methods were inadequate. (’595 Patent, col. 2:1-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶157).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A system for cooling an electronic display having a rear surface.
    • Placing a "substantially planar surface adjacent to the rear surface" of the display to "define a gap".
    • Placing a "closed loop of circulating gas" around the display.
    • Forcing the circulating gas around the closed loop.
    • Forcing "cooling air through the gap".
    • Preventing the circulating gas from mixing with the cooling air.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,173,322 - "Constricted Convection Cooling System for an Electronic Display"

  • Issued: October 27, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like the ’595 Patent, this patent addresses inefficient and inadequate cooling of electronic displays, particularly large-screen displays used in outdoor environments where heat from internal components and solar load can degrade performance and cause damage. (’322 Patent, col. 1:49-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a cooling system with two distinct airflow paths. A "closed loop" circulates an isolated gas (like air or nitrogen) across the front surface of the display to remove heat from solar loading, with the gas being cooled in a rear plenum. Concurrently, an "open loop" uses a fan to force ambient air through a "constricted convection" gap behind the display's backlight, directly cooling the heat-generating components. (’322 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-41).
  • Technical Importance: This dual-loop system provides comprehensive thermal management by separately addressing the two primary sources of heat in an outdoor display—solar load on the front and backlight heat from the rear—improving operational stability.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-5 and 7 (Compl. ¶163).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) include:
    • Providing an electronic display having a display surface and a rear surface.
    • Positioning a "first gas chamber" anterior to the display surface.
    • Positioning a "second gas chamber" posterior to the rear surface, creating a "gap".
    • Propelling gas around the first and second gas chambers via a "cooling chamber fan".
    • Drawing ambient air through the gap via a separate fan.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,767,165: "Isolated Gas Cooling System for an Electronic Display," issued July 1, 2014. This patent describes a cooling system with a closed loop of isolated gas that circulates through a transparent front chamber and a rear cooling plenum to remove heat from the display surface, primarily addressing solar load (Compl. ¶169). Asserted claims include 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,274,622: "System for Using Constricted Convection with Closed Loop Plenum as the Convection Plate," issued September 25, 2012. This patent focuses on a system that combines a closed-loop gas cooling circuit for the front of the display with a constricted convection channel at the rear to cool the backlight, using fans to move air through the gap (Compl. ¶175). Asserted claims include 1-2, 5-6, 10, and 17. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,482,695: "System for Using Constricted Convection with Closed Loop Cooling System as the Convection Plate," issued July 9, 2013. This patent discloses a similar hybrid system with a closed-loop gas circuit for the front and an open-loop constricted convection channel for the rear, detailing the structural arrangement of the plenums and channels (Compl. ¶181). Asserted claims include 1-6, 8, 12, and 15. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,854,572: "System for Using Constricted Convection with Closed Loop Cooling System as the Convection Plate," issued October 7, 2014. This patent describes a method for cooling a display by forcing cooling air through a gap behind the display's rear surface while simultaneously circulating a separate, isolated gas in a closed loop around the display (Compl. ¶187). Asserted claims include 1, 4-5, 7-10, and 14-18. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,089,079: "System for Using Constricted Convection with Closed Loop Cooling System as the Convection Plate," issued July 21, 2015. This patent claims a cooling system that combines an open-loop cooling air path along the rear of the display with a closed-loop circulating gas path that surrounds the display, with the two air paths not mixing (Compl. ¶193). Asserted claims include 1-5, 7-8, 11, 13-16, and 18. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,373,841: "Shared Isolated Gas Cooling System for Oppositely Facing Electronic Displays," issued February 12, 2013. This patent covers a cooling system for a back-to-back dual-display unit, where a shared, closed-loop gas system cools the front faces of both displays via transparent gas chambers and a central cooling plenum (Compl. ¶199). Asserted claims include 1-6, 8, 9-11, 13, and 16-17. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,351,014: "Heat Exchanger for Back to Back Electronic Displays," issued January 8, 2013. This technology relates to a dual-display assembly that uses a heat exchanger positioned between the two back-to-back displays. A closed loop circulates gas over the front display surfaces and through the heat exchanger, while an open loop draws ambient air through the heat exchanger to remove the heat (Compl. ¶205). Asserted claims include 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, and 20. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,030,129: "Backlight Adjustment System," issued May 12, 2015. This patent describes a system for adjusting backlight brightness based on both ambient light levels and the temperature within the backlight cavity. The system dims the backlight when temperatures are too high to reduce heat, and brightens it when too cold to generate heat, while also accounting for ambient light for visibility (Compl. ¶211). Asserted claims include 1-2, 7, 8-10, and 12. The "Accused Devices" are accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,167,655: "Backlight Adjustment System," issued October 20, 2015. This patent covers a similar system for controlling backlight power based on inputs from an ambient light sensor and a temperature sensor within the housing, adjusting power to maintain performance across different environmental conditions (Compl. ¶217). Asserted claims include 1-2, 7-10, and 12. The "Accused Devices" are accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,125,163: "Backlight Adjustment System," issued February 28, 2012. This patent claims a system that controls backlight brightness based on both the temperature in the backlight cavity and ambient light levels, using a software driver to decrease power when temperatures are high and increase it when temperatures are low (Compl. ¶223). Asserted claims include 1-2 and 7. The "Accused Devices" are accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,829,815: "Backlight Adjustment System," issued September 9, 2014. This patent describes a system for controlling backlighting using ambient light and temperature sensors. A software driver adapts the power source based on a measured light ratio and temperature thresholds to manage heat and ensure visibility (Compl. ¶229). Asserted claims include 1-2 and 7-9. The "Accused Devices" are accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,313,917: "Thermal Plate with Optional Cooling Loop in Electronic Display," issued April 12, 2016. This patent describes a thermal plate in conductive communication with an electronic display and its housing to dissipate heat. The system can be supplemented with an optional cooling loop where a fan forces air through a channel between the display and a transparent front plate (Compl. ¶235). Asserted claims include 1, 3, 7, 10, and 12-13. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,497,972: "Thermal Plate with Optional Cooling Loop in Electronic Display," issued July 30, 2013. This patent also relates to a thermally-conductive housing and thermal plate system for passive heat dissipation. It includes an optional fan to draw air through a channel between the display and a transparent plate assembly (Compl. ¶241). Asserted claims include 1, 3, and 5. The "Link" device is accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,016,452: "Advertising Displays," issued September 13, 2011. This patent describes a display apparatus with a housing and an image assembly that are hingedly fastened, allowing them to rotate open for easy access to internal components like the backlight assembly for repair or replacement without removing the entire display from its mounting (Compl. ¶247). Asserted claims include 1-2, 4-6, 9, and 11. The "Ferro" and "Totem" lines are accused.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,448,569: "System for Reducing the Thermal Inertia of an Electronic Display," issued September 20, 2016. This patent discloses a system that uses an ambient light sensor to anticipate a future temperature rise (e.g., from direct sunlight) and proactively increases cooling fan speed before the internal temperature actually rises, thereby reducing thermal inertia (Compl. ¶253). Asserted claims include 1-10. The "Link" device is accused.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Devices" as various lines of semi-outdoor and outdoor digital displays, including the "FlexVue," "Pronto," "Totem," and "Ferro" series, as well as "The Link display units" and other digital out-of-home displays (Compl. ¶151).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are alleged to be outdoor digital displays that incorporate "air cooling technology using ambient air" and "cooling air technology using ambient air and circulating air" (Compl. ¶150). The complaint specifically alleges that marketing for the Totem, Ferro, and Pronto lines touts a patented "Direct Air Cooling System (DACS)" (Compl. ¶133). The complaint references marketing materials, attached as Exhibit FF, which allegedly describe the DACS technology (Compl. ¶133). It also references a photograph, attached as Exhibit C, allegedly showing the use of Samsung display products in Defendants' devices (Compl. ¶37). These displays compete directly with the Plaintiff's products in the market for outdoor digital signage (Compl. ¶139).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all asserted patents but refers to an exemplary claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not attached to the publicly filed document. The following charts are constructed based on the narrative infringement theory provided in the complaint—namely, that the Accused Devices are "displays having air cooling technology using ambient air, and displays having cooling air technology using ambient air and circulating air" (Compl. ¶150).

U.S. Patent No. 8,854,595 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
placing a substantially planar surface adjacent to the rear surface of the electronic display to define a gap The accused displays allegedly include internal structures, such as a rear plate or housing wall, positioned behind the display panel to create a gap for airflow as part of their ambient air cooling system. ¶150 col. 4:29-32
forcing cooling air through the gap The accused displays' "air cooling technology using ambient air" allegedly uses fans to force or draw ambient air through the defined gap to cool the display's rear surface. ¶150 col. 4:29-32
placing a closed loop of circulating gas around the display The accused displays' "cooling air technology using... circulating air" allegedly includes a separate, sealed air circuit that circulates internal air around the display components. ¶150 col. 4:5-13
preventing the circulating gas from mixing with the cooling air The alleged internal design of the accused displays maintains separation between the external ambient air used for cooling the rear surface and the internal circulating air. ¶150 col. 5:14-17

U.S. Patent No. 9,173,322 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing...a first gas chamber positioned anterior to the electronic display surface; a second gas chamber...positioned posterior to the rear surface...the space between the rear surface and the second gas chamber defining a gap The accused devices allegedly contain a front chamber before the display screen and a rear chamber behind it, with the rear chamber defining a gap for airflow as part of the overall cooling design. ¶150 col. 3:19-41
propelling gas around the first and second gas chambers by way of a cooling chamber fan The "circulating air" aspect of the accused cooling technology allegedly uses an internal fan to move isolated gas through the front and rear chambers in a closed loop. ¶150 col. 3:30-34
drawing ambient air from outside of the housing through said gap by way of a fan The "ambient air" aspect of the accused cooling technology allegedly uses a fan to pull external air through the gap behind the display's rear surface to provide direct cooling. ¶150 col. 3:28-32

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Questions: A primary point of contention may be whether the physical construction of the Accused Devices maps onto the specific two-path (open-loop and closed-loop) architecture required by many of the asserted claims. The complaint's general allegation of "ambient air and circulating air" systems raises the question of whether Defendants' products actually contain the distinct "closed loop of circulating gas" taught in patents like the ’595 Patent, or if their system is fundamentally different.
  • Functional Questions: For patents like the '322 Patent, which claim a method, a key question will be evidentiary: what proof demonstrates that the Accused Devices actually perform all the claimed steps, such as propelling gas through a first (anterior) gas chamber and separately drawing ambient air through a second (posterior) chamber's gap? The defense may argue that their "Direct Air Cooling System" is a simpler, single-path open-loop system that does not meet these multi-part limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 8,854,595

  • The Term: "constricted convection plate"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in many of the asserted patents and is central to the claimed invention. Its definition will be critical for determining whether the rear panel or internal structure of the accused DACS constitutes the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on whether the term implies a specific, separate component added for cooling, or if it can read on an existing structural part of the display's housing.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the plate defines a "constricted convection cooling channel," suggesting its primary identity is functional. Language such as "The constricted convection plate 30 may be mounted to the posterior display surface 22" (’595 Patent, col. 4:1-2) could be argued to cover any surface mounted behind the display that performs this function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 depicts the plate (30) as a distinct component with specific features like angled side panels (32) and access apertures (34). Defendants may argue these specific embodiments limit the term to a plate with such structural characteristics, not just any back panel of a housing. (’595 Patent, col. 4:3-12).

For U.S. Patent No. 9,173,322

  • The Term: "a closed loop of circulating gas"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from simple open-loop systems that only use ambient air. The infringement allegation hinges on whether Defendants' products contain both an open-loop ambient air system and this separate closed-loop system. The construction will determine if any internal air circulation within the accused devices qualifies as the claimed "closed loop."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the purpose is to "propel gas around the first and second gas chambers" (’322 Patent, col. 5:28-30), focusing on the function of circulating a contained volume of gas. Plaintiff may argue this broadly covers any system that recirculates internal air over display components, separate from the ambient air intake.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the "isolated gas cooling chamber 20" which "is essentially isolated from external air" (’322 Patent, col. 3:56-61) and figures showing a distinct, continuous path (e.g., Fig. 2) suggest a specifically engineered, sealed, and separate circuit. The defense may argue that incidental internal air movement does not meet the "closed loop" requirement.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants distribute, market, and provide instruction manuals and technical assistance that encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶263-265). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused systems are material to practicing the claims, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Defendants to be especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶270, 273).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for willfulness is Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit acquired through a series of notice letters sent by Plaintiff beginning on May 17, 2016. The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing acts after receiving notice and without providing a substantive response to the infringement allegations, constituting bad faith (Compl. ¶154, 256).

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

  • A central issue will be one of architectural scope: does the Defendants' accused "Direct Air Cooling System" embody the specific dual-path (open-loop ambient air and closed-loop circulating gas) architecture that is a core feature of many of the asserted patents, or is it a fundamentally different single-path design? The outcome will depend heavily on claim construction and factual evidence regarding the actual operation of the accused products.
  • A key question will be one of anticipation versus reaction: for the patents related to thermal inertia (e.g., the ’569 Patent), the dispute will likely focus on whether the accused systems proactively increase cooling based on external factors like ambient light, as claimed, or merely react to measured internal temperature. This presents an evidentiary challenge concerning the logic and operation of Defendants' control software.
  • Finally, the case will present a question of infringement breadth: with seventeen patents asserted covering a range of related cooling technologies, a significant issue will be whether the single accused cooling architecture can be found to infringe across such a broad portfolio, or if the subtle distinctions between the patents will allow Defendants to design around some claims while potentially infringing others.