DCT
9:12-cv-80694
Florida Atlantic University Research Corp v. Acer Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Florida Atlantic University Research Corporation (Florida) and Domaine Associates, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Acer Inc. (Taiwan) and Acer America Corporation (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hunton & Williams LLP
- Case Identification: 9:12-cv-80694, S.D. Fla., 06/28/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, regularly transacting business there through their website and retailers like Best Buy, and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that certain computer monitors and other products sold by Acer infringe a patent related to adaptive video scan conversion technology.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of converting video signals between different formats (e.g., line counts, aspect ratios) to be displayed on modern fixed-format screens.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff Florida Atlantic University Research Corporation is the assignee and owner of the patent-in-suit, and Plaintiff Domaine Associates is the exclusive licensee. No other significant procedural history is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1992-08-06 | '385 Patent Priority Date |
| 1994-09-20 | '385 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-06-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,349,385 - “Adaptive Scan Converter”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,349,385, “Adaptive Scan Converter,” issued September 20, 1994.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the proliferation of video display formats with varying line counts and aspect ratios. While older CRT displays could be easily adjusted, modern "solid-state driven matrix displays" have a fixed physical format, necessitating a "scan converter" to adapt incoming signals to the display's native resolution ('385 Patent, col. 1:5-34). The patent notes that existing scan converters often relied on a full "frame store" (a memory buffer holding an entire video frame), which added complexity, cost, and could introduce motion artifacts ('385 Patent, col. 2:15-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient scan converter that avoids a full frame store. Its key insight is to operate with the same vertical scan frequency for both the input signal and the output signal ('385 Patent, col. 2:50-54). This synchronization allows the device to derive the output video by interpolating from the current incoming field using only a few lines of memory, rather than a full frame buffer ('385 Patent, col. 2:54-58). The system is "adaptive" because it automatically recognizes the number of lines in the input signal and selects the correct interpolation routine to convert to the desired fixed output format ('385 Patent, col. 2:60-63). This process is illustrated in the relationship between the "Auto Line Number" block (30) and the "Interpolator" (14) in Figure 1.
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a simpler, lower-cost scan converter that could produce high-quality progressive scan output without the motion smear associated with frame-store-based systems ('385 Patent, col. 2:30-34, 40-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative of the apparatus.
- Independent Claim 1:
- (a) means for recognizing the number of lines in said input format;
- (b) means responsive to the number of lines recognized in said input format and to the number of lines in said selected fixed output format for automatically deriving an interpolation ratio to make the conversion from said input format to said selected fixed output format; and
- (c) interpolation means for deriving by interpolation according to said derived interpolation ratio, a current field or frame having said selected fixed output format from a current field of an input signal having said input format.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies specific Acer computer monitors, including "the AL1923, G195HQ, G185H, G185HV, and B243HL," as well as "other Acer products which include or are bundled with the aforementioned product, and other Acer products that include the ability to scale or convert video" (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused products contain technology for "video scaling and scan converting" (Compl. ¶2). The core accused functionality is the products' "ability to scale or convert video in the manner claimed by the '385 Patent" (Compl. ¶23). No specific details about the products' market position or commercial importance are provided.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations beyond a general assertion that the accused products have the "ability to scale or convert video" (Compl. ¶23). The following chart is constructed based on the complaint's general theory of infringement against the elements of representative independent claim 1. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'385 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) means for recognizing the number of lines in said input format; | The complaint alleges that the accused products include the ability to convert video, which suggests the presence of a component that performs this function. The complaint does not provide specific details on the structure or operation of this component. | ¶2, ¶23 | col. 6:35-37 |
| (b) means responsive to the number of lines recognized in said input format and to the number of lines in said selected fixed output format for automatically deriving an interpolation ratio...; | The complaint alleges that the accused products perform video scaling and conversion, which suggests the presence of functionality that automatically determines and applies an interpolation ratio. The complaint does not provide specific details on the structure or operation of this component. | ¶2, ¶23 | col. 6:38-44 |
| (c) interpolation means for deriving by interpolation according to said derived interpolation ratio, a current field or frame having said selected fixed output format from a current field of an input signal... | The complaint alleges that the accused products perform video scaling and conversion "in the manner claimed by the '385 Patent" (Compl. ¶23), which suggests the use of an interpolation process to generate the output video. The complaint does not provide specific details on whether this process derives the output from a current input field without a full frame store, as described in the patent. | ¶2, ¶23 | col. 6:45-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): The claim language "means for..." raises the question of whether these limitations are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). If so, their scope would be limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification (e.g., the "Auto Line Number" circuit 30) and their equivalents. A central dispute may be whether the circuitry inside Acer’s monitors is structurally equivalent to the specific implementations described in the '385 patent.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused products operate with the same vertical scan frequency for both input and output, a feature the patent identifies as an "important aspect of the invention" ('385 Patent, col. 3:28-31) and a necessary condition for its operation ('385 Patent, col. 6:63-65). The complaint does not provide evidence on this point, and it is a potential mismatch if the accused products use modern scaling techniques that do not impose this constraint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "means for recognizing the number of lines in said input format"
Context and Importance: This is the first element of the claimed apparatus and is written in means-plus-function format. Its construction will define what specific hardware (and equivalents) is covered by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products contain the specific structure disclosed in the patent for performing this function.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint provides no basis for this analysis. A party might argue that the function is simply "recognizing the number of lines," and any circuit that does so should be considered.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure: a circuit (block 30) containing a memory (RAM) that stores pre-determined interpolation ratios for various input formats, which are then compared with the "current input to create a match" ('385 Patent, col. 4:51-54). This detailed description could be used to argue for a narrow construction limited to this "store-and-match" architecture and its equivalents.
The Term: "a predetermined vertical scan frequency"
Context and Importance: This limitation, found in the preamble and body of claim 1, appears central to the patent's inventive concept of avoiding a full frame store. Whether the accused products meet this limitation may be a dispositive issue for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for this analysis. A party might argue that minor, inconsequential variations in frequency do not defeat the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes that the input and output vertical scan frequencies must be the same. It states, "The same vertical scan frequency is used for the input and the output" ('385 Patent, col. 2:50-52) and that the invention is capable of converting different formats "provided, always, that the input and output vertical scan frequencies are the same" ('385 Patent, col. 6:63-65). This language strongly supports an interpretation requiring identical or nearly identical vertical scan frequencies.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. It makes only a conclusory allegation of infringement through the acts of "making, having made, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing infringing products" (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the "means for..." limitations in claim 1 be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, thereby limiting the claims to the specific "store-and-match" circuit architecture disclosed in the specification and its equivalents? The answer will determine the scope of evidence needed to prove infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Acer scaling technology actually operate by maintaining the same vertical scan frequency between the input and output signals, as the patent teaches and the claims require? A mismatch on this fundamental operational principle could present a significant hurdle for the infringement case.
- A third question centers on proof of structure: given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, a central task for the plaintiff will be to prove, through discovery and expert analysis, that the internal architecture of Acer's monitors contains components that are structurally equivalent to those disclosed in the patent for performing the claimed functions of "recognizing" and "deriving an interpolation ratio."