DCT

1:22-cv-00125

Vibrant Licensing LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00125, D. Del., 06/08/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware on the grounds that both Defendants are incorporated in Delaware and therefore reside in the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain smartphones and foldable laptops sold by Defendants infringe two patents related to integrating touch-sensing functionality directly into the structure of an OLED display.
  • Technical Context: The patents concern technologies that aim to eliminate separate touch-sensor overlays by using the display's own pixels to either sense reflected light from a user's touch or detect changes in a sub-threshold electrical field.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-03-10 Priority Date, U.S. Patent No. 8,243,045
2009-03-11 Priority Date, U.S. Patent No. 8,203,541
2012-06-19 Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 8,203,541
2012-08-14 Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 8,243,045
2020-01-01 Approximate Launch Year, Motorola Edge (2020) and Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold
2022-06-08 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,203,541: “OLED Display and Sensor”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,203,541, titled “OLED Display and Sensor,” issued on June 19, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent disclosure describes a need for accurately identifying the location of a touch on a display, such as those in hand-held devices (ʼ541 Patent, col. 2:1-5). Conventional systems often use separate display and touch-sensing layers.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified device where the OLED display itself serves as the touch sensor. The display’s pixels ("nodes") emit light, which reflects off a proximate object like a user's finger. This reflected light passes back through the transparent or semi-transparent display layers and is detected by "measurement circuitry" located near the pixels. The signals from this measurement circuitry are then used to determine the touch location (ʼ541 Patent, col. 2:7-22; Abstract). The emitted light can be pulsed at a rate not visible to the human eye to facilitate sensing without interfering with the displayed image (ʼ541 Patent, col. 2:22-28).
  • Technical Importance: This approach could allow for the elimination of a separate touch-sensor panel, which may simplify device manufacturing and improve optical clarity (ʼ541 Patent, col. 2:15-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An OLED display with OLED materials forming a plurality of nodes that emit light when a signal is provided.
    • Measurement circuitry disposed proximate to the nodes.
    • The measurement circuitry is configured to sense light that is reflected off an object, passes through the OLED materials, and provides a measurement signal in response.

U.S. Patent No. 8,243,045: “Touch-Sensitive Display Device and Method”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,243,045, titled “Touch-Sensitive Display Device and Method,” issued on August 14, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background explains that prior art systems with separate touch and display panels are physically decoupled, which can lead to misalignment or "drift" over time, requiring periodic user recalibration and adding complexity to manufacturing (ʼ045 Patent, col. 1:8-15; col. 2:19-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "shared circuit" that combines display and sensing functions. When a voltage below an illumination threshold (a "sub-threshold signal") is applied, the circuit does not emit visible light but establishes a reference electrical state (e.g., a capacitance field). A touch from a user disrupts this state. "Measurement circuitry" detects this change, or "distortion," to identify the touch location. When a voltage above the threshold is applied, the same circuit emits light to function as a display (ʼ045 Patent, col. 2:40-54; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating the sensing and display functions into a single shared circuit, the invention purports to eliminate calibration requirements and simplify the manufacturing process (ʼ045 Patent, col. 2:19-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A display comprising a plurality of touch-sensitive locations.
    • Measurement circuitry electrically coupled to each of the touch-sensitive locations.
    • Each affected touch-sensitive location generates a signal change with a magnitude corresponding to the strength of the touch.
    • A processor that receives the signal changes and determines the touch location by identifying the location with the highest magnitude signal change.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the Motorola Edge+, Motorola Edge, Motorola Edge (2020), Moto Z4, and Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold as accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 29, 30).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are commercially available smartphones and a foldable laptop, all of which feature touch-sensitive OLED screens (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 28). The complaint alleges that these products, through their normal operation, incorporate the patented technologies for touch detection. No specific technical details about the internal operation of the accused devices' touch screens are provided beyond the general infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶ 22-24, 28-30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits C, D, E, F, and G, which were not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 29, 30). The infringement theories are summarized below based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

'541 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products, such as the Motorola Edge+, infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’541 Patent (Compl. ¶ 23). The narrative theory suggests that the OLED displays in these devices perform the dual functions of light emission and touch sensing. The OLED pixels are alleged to be the "nodes" that emit light. When a user touches the screen, this light allegedly reflects from the user's finger (the "object"), passes back "through the OLED materials," and is sensed by integrated "measurement circuitry" to determine the touch location (Compl. ¶¶ 22-24).

'045 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that accused products, including the Moto Z4 and Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold, infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’045 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30). The infringement theory posits that the devices’ displays contain "touch-sensitive locations" coupled to "measurement circuitry." A user's touch is alleged to generate a "signal change" in the circuitry, with the signal's "magnitude corresponding to a strength of the touch." A processor then allegedly determines the final touch location by analyzing signals from multiple locations and identifying the one with the "highest magnitude" change (Compl. ¶¶ 28-30).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question (ʼ541 Patent): A central factual question for the court will be whether the accused devices utilize a touch-sensing mechanism based on detecting reflected light as required by Claim 1. The complaint does not provide evidence to distinguish its theory from more common methods like capacitive sensing.
  • Scope Question (ʼ045 Patent): The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of "signal change having a magnitude corresponding to a strength of the touch." A question for the court will be whether this language can read on the output of a standard capacitive sensor (which primarily detects presence and location) or if it requires a system that specifically measures touch force or pressure, as detailed in the patent’s embodiments (ʼ045 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'541 Patent

  • The Term: "measurement circuitry ... configured to sense the light reflected off of an object ... and passed through the OLED materials" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This phrase recites the core mechanism of the invention. The infringement case for the ’541 patent depends on whether the accused devices perform this specific light-reflection and sensing function. Practitioners may focus on this term because alternative, non-infringing sensing technologies (e.g., capacitive) are common in the market.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the type of sensor or circuitry, potentially allowing it to cover any circuitry that performs the recited function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments where the measurement circuitry includes "photo detectors, photo diodes and/or photo transistors" and may use filters to distinguish pulsed light from ambient noise (ʼ541 Patent, col. 2:43-47, col. 2:55-63). A party could argue these details limit the scope of the claimed circuitry.

'045 Patent

  • The Term: "signal change having a magnitude corresponding to a strength of the touch" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining what type of signal is being claimed. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers standard touch screens or is limited to those that can differentiate touch force.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain words could be argued to cover any variation in an electrical property that occurs upon a touch.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the claimed change to touch force, stating that "the harder the display is touched, the higher the degree of distortion in the sub-threshold signal" (ʼ045 Patent, col. 3:1-4). This language may support an interpretation that requires the "magnitude" of the signal change to be proportional to the physical "strength" of the touch, not just its presence.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement, as it does not plead specific facts regarding knowledge or inducement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support a claim for willful infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding of an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint body lacks a corresponding factual basis (Compl. p. 6).

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

  1. Mechanism of Infringement: A primary issue will be one of technical operation. For the ’541 patent, can the plaintiff prove that the accused devices employ a touch-sensing system based on detecting reflected light, as opposed to a different, non-infringing technology like capacitive sensing?
  2. Claim Scope: The case will likely involve a significant dispute over definitional scope. For the ’045 patent, can the phrase "signal change having a magnitude corresponding to a strength of the touch" be construed to cover the operation of a standard touch screen, or is its meaning limited by the specification to a system that measures touch force by detecting distortion in a sub-threshold signal?
  3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given that the infringement allegations are pleaded at a high level without detailed technical support, a key hurdle for the plaintiff will be to obtain and present discovery evidence that conclusively shows the accused devices' internal hardware and software perform the specific, multi-step functions recited in the asserted claims.