DCT
1:18-cv-00687
Visual Effect Innovations LLC v. LG Electronics USA Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Visual Effect Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware) and LG Electronics Inc. (Republic of Korea)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00687, D. Del., 05/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware corporation and Defendant LG Electronics Inc. is a foreign corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s televisions and monitors, which incorporate motion enhancement technologies, infringe two patents related to methods of displaying moving pictures by manipulating image frames to create enhanced visual effects.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of digital video processing, specifically techniques for improving perceived motion clarity and creating depth effects on electronic displays by altering the sequence of displayed video frames.
- Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are part of a large, extended family of patents and applications related to creating visual effects, though the complaint does not reference any specific prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these particular patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’408 and ’922 Patents |
| 2017-10-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,781,408 Issues |
| 2018-04-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issues |
| 2018-05-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,781,408 - “Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,781,408, issued October 3, 2017.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes how conventional methods for displaying motion pictures and video often result in "flicker," an undesirable visual artifact caused by the rapid on-off display of image frames (Compl. ¶¶6-7; ’408 Patent, col. 4:42-53, col. 50:47-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes to harness and control "flicker" to create desirable visual outcomes, such as enhanced continuous movement or depth illusions. This is achieved by presenting a sequence of images that includes "at least two substantially similar image pictures alternating with a third visual interval or bridging picture" which is substantially dissimilar to the other two pictures (’408 Patent, col. 8:50-56). The complaint alleges this can be accomplished through techniques like backlight scanning (Compl. ¶9).
- Technical Importance: This technique proposed to use an inherent artifact of display technology as a tool to improve the viewing experience on standard displays, potentially creating perceptual effects without requiring specialized 3D screens or glasses (Compl. ¶¶7-8).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Claim 1 of the ’408 Patent recites an apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to:
- obtain a first image frame from a video stream;
- expand the first image frame to generate a different, modified image frame;
- generate a first altered image frame with first and second non-overlapping portions, where the first portion comprises a part of the modified image frame and the second portion is not included in the first or modified image frames; and
- generate a second altered image frame with third and fourth non-overlapping portions, where the third portion comprises a different part of the modified image frame and the fourth portion is not included in the first or modified image frames.
U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - “Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922, issued April 17, 2018.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Like the ’408 patent, this patent addresses the problem of "flicker" and undesirable visual effects in conventional video displays that alternate between image frames and periods of darkness (’922 Patent, col. 4:44-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for creating "continuous, seamless and sustained directional movement" by repetitively presenting at least two similar image pictures that alternate with a dissimilar "bridging picture," such as a solid black frame (’922 Patent, col. 8:52-58). The complaint alleges that this can be implemented through either "black frame insertion" or "backlight scanning" (Compl. ¶9).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for reducing motion blur and enhancing visual perception by actively inserting dissimilar frames into the video stream, a technique now common in high-refresh-rate displays (Compl. ¶¶9-10).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- Claim 1 of the ’922 Patent recites an apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to:
- obtain a first and a second image frame from a video stream;
- generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame;
- generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame;
- generate a bridge frame of a solid color that is different from the first and second image frames;
- display the first modified image frame;
- display the bridge frame; and
- display the second modified image frame.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint accuses "LG televisions and monitors" generally (Compl. ¶11). It identifies the LG LM9600/LM960V television as a representative product for the ’408 Patent allegations and the LG 38UC99-W monitor as representative for the ’922 Patent allegations (Compl. ¶¶22, 35).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that the accused products incorporate features such as "Resolution Upscaler," "TruMotion 240Hz," "Backlight Scanning," and "1ms Motion Blur Reduction" (Compl. ¶¶25, 26, 38, 40).
- The "Resolution Upscaler" is alleged to expand lower-resolution input frames to the display's higher native resolution (Compl. ¶25). This is shown in a marketing graphic comparing a 1920x1080 input to a 3840x2160 upscaled output (Compl. Fig. 15).
- "Backlight Scanning" is alleged to turn the backlight off and on sequentially to create the effect of a black frame, syncing the signal rate with the refresh rate (Compl. ¶¶26, 27). A technical diagram from a third-party source is provided to explain this process (Compl. Fig. 7).
- "1ms Motion Blur Reduction" is alleged to produce "a black image insertion with backlight blinking effect" (Compl. ¶40, Fig. 18).
- The complaint alleges these products are made, used, sold, and imported by LG, but provides no specific data on market position or commercial success (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'408 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus comprising: a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and a processor adapted to: | LG televisions and monitors contain storage (for instructions and frames) and a processor. | ¶23 | col. 14:34-36 |
| obtain a first image frame from a first video stream; | The processor obtains image frames from video inputs such as HDMI, DisplayPort, or cable. | ¶24 | col. 14:36-39 |
| expand the first image frame to generate a modified image frame, wherein the modified image frame is different from the first image frame; | The "Resolution Upscaler" feature expands received image frames (e.g., 1080i) to the screen's native resolution (e.g., 3840x2160), creating a modified frame that is different in size. | ¶25 | col. 14:39-42 |
| generate a first altered image frame that includes first and second non-overlapping portions, wherein the first non-overlapping portion comprises a first portion of the modified image frame, wherein the first image frame does not include the second non-overlapping portion, wherein the modified image frame does not include the second non-overlapping portion; | "Backlight Scanning" technology allegedly generates this frame. An annotated screenshot from a video shows a partially illuminated screen, identified as the "first altered image frame," where the illuminated part is the "first non-overlapping portion" and the dark part is the "second non-overlapping portion." | ¶26, ¶27, Fig. 8 | col. 14:43-50 |
| and generate a second altered image frame that includes third and fourth non-overlapping portions wherein the third non-overlapping portion comprises a second portion of the modified image frame, the second portion of the modified image frame being different from the first portion... wherein the first image frame does not include the fourth non-overlapping portion, wherein the modified image frame does not include the fourth non-overlapping portion. | The complaint alleges backlight scanning continues by generating a subsequent frame where a different physical section of the screen is lit, which is identified as the "third non-overlapping portion." The annotated screenshot purports to show this "second altered image frame." | ¶28, Fig. 9 | col. 14:50-61 |
'922 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus comprising: a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; a processor adapted to... | LG monitors include storage and a processor. | ¶36 | col. 14:34-35 |
| obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream; | The processor obtains sequential image frames from video inputs. | ¶37 | col. 14:36-39 |
| generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame... generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame... | The "Super+ Resolution" upscaling feature expands the input frames to match the screen resolution, creating modified frames that are different from the original input frames. | ¶38, ¶39 | col. 14:39-46 |
| generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color, wherein the bridge frame is different from the first image frame and different from the second image frame; | The "1ms Motion Blur Reduction" feature uses "black frame insertion ('BFI')" to create a solid black frame that is different from the displayed image frames. | ¶40 | col. 14:46-50 |
| display the first modified image frame; display the bridge frame; and display the second modified image frame. | The processor is adapted to display the sequence of the first upscaled image, the black bridge frame, and the second upscaled image. A marketing diagram illustrates this sequence (Compl. Fig. 19). | ¶41, Fig. 19, Fig. 21 | col. 14:51-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute for the ’408 patent may center on the meaning of "generate a... frame." The court will have to determine if this requires the creation of new image data (a narrower view), or if it can be satisfied by a physical process like "backlight scanning" that sequentially illuminates portions of a screen displaying a single, static data frame (a broader view). For the ’922 patent, a question may arise as to whether turning off the backlight constitutes "generating" a "bridge frame" that is a "solid color," or if the claim requires an actual data frame with pixel values corresponding to a solid color to be sent to the display panel.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question for the ’408 patent infringement theory is whether LG's backlight scanning operates on "non-overlapping portions" of a single "modified image frame" as depicted in the complaint's annotated screenshots (Compl. Fig. 8, 9). For the ’922 patent, the question is whether the "1ms Motion Blur Reduction" feature functions by inserting a discrete black frame between two distinct, upscaled image frames, or through another mechanism. The technical accuracy and evidentiary weight of the third-party marketing materials and annotated video stills used in the complaint will be a focus.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'408 Patent
- The Term: "generate a... frame that includes... non-overlapping portions"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory against the backlight scanning feature. Plaintiff's case depends on this claim language being broad enough to read on a physical illumination technique, not just a data manipulation process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the goal of creating a "visual interval or bridging picture" and states the invention is for "originating visual illusions" ('408 Patent, col. 8:50-58, col. 8:44-46). This focus on the resulting visual perception, rather than a specific implementation, may support interpreting "generate a frame" more broadly to include any technique that produces the claimed visual effect.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites generating a "frame" that "includes" specific "portions." This language suggests a data structure. Embodiments described in the patent focus on "blending" image frames, which is an operation on image data ('408 Patent, col. 47:38-50, Figs. 35A-35D). This could support a narrower construction requiring the creation of a new digital frame in memory or a data stream.
'922 Patent
- The Term: "generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color"
- Context and Importance: The allegation of infringement hinges on LG's "black frame insertion" feature meeting this limitation. The dispute will question whether turning off the backlight is equivalent to "generating" a "solid color" frame.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a "bridging picture" is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" ('922 Patent, col. 8:60-62). The use of "preferably" implies other types of bridge frames are contemplated. The complaint alleges that techniques like "backlight scanning" achieve the "same result" as inserting a black frame, which may support an interpretation based on function rather than form (Compl. ¶9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes processes of generating and blending frames, implying the creation of image data (e.g., '922 Patent, col. 11:1-11). A defendant may argue that "generate a... frame" requires creating a data object to be displayed, and that merely de-energizing the backlight does not constitute the generation of a frame. The term "solid color" could be construed to require specific pixel data, not the mere absence of light.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that LG is liable for direct and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and (c) (Compl. ¶¶30, 43). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for induced or contributory infringement, such as referencing user manuals that instruct infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a specific count for willful infringement or allege facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees, but the factual basis for this request is not detailed in the body of the complaint (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "generate a... frame" be construed to cover physical display operations like backlight scanning, which manipulate light, or are they limited to processes that manipulate image data? The answer will likely determine the viability of the infringement theory for the ’408 patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism versus marketing claim: does the accused "black frame insertion" technology actually generate and display a discrete, solid-color "bridge frame" between two modified image frames as required by the ’922 patent, or is this a marketing simplification for a more complex backlight strobing technique that may not map to the specific steps of the claim?
- A third question concerns the patents' context. Given the patents' titles and extensive discussion of "3Deeps filter spectacles" and the "Pulfrich illusion," the court may need to decide whether this context limits the scope of apparatus claims that are drafted more broadly to cover general-purpose televisions and monitors.