DCT

1:22-cv-04337

Flexiworld Tech Inc v. Hisense Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
2000-11-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,965,233
2018-05-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,965,233 Issued
2021-06-08 U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903 Issued
2021-10-14 Plaintiff allegedly sends first pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2021-12-29 Plaintiff allegedly sends second pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2022-01-01 Defendant announces television models including Google TV software (approximate date)
2023-03-07 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,965,233 - "Digital content services or stores over the internet that transmit or stream protected or encrypted digital content to connected devices and applications that access the digital content services or stores"

  • Issued: May 8, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the inconvenience of outputting content from mobile or "pervasive" computing devices to output devices like printers or displays, which traditionally required installing device-specific drivers and synchronizing with a stationary computer (’233 Patent; see U.S. Patent No. 8,169,649, col. 1:47-2:46, incorporated by reference).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where an information apparatus (like a smartphone) generates an "intermediate output data" containing a rasterized image of the content, which is then transmitted to an output device ('233 Patent; see U.S. Patent No. 8,169,649, col. 5:26-44, incorporated by reference). This approach aims to share the processing load between the source and output devices, eliminating the need for full, device-specific drivers on the source device ('233 Patent; see U.S. Patent No. 8,169,649, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technology sought to create a universal and convenient method for outputting content from a variety of mobile devices to a plurality of different output devices without cumbersome, device-specific setup procedures (Compl. ¶40, ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 37 (Compl. ¶79).
  • Claim 1, a method claim, includes these essential elements:
    • Obtaining, at an information apparatus, digital content for outputting.
    • Generating, at the information apparatus, an intermediate output data that includes a rasterized output image and is encoded using a predefined standard.
    • Transmitting the intermediate output data to an output device for rendering.
  • Claim 37, a method claim, includes these essential elements:
    • Transmitting, from a digital content service, protected digital content to an information apparatus.
    • Obtaining, at the information apparatus, the protected digital content.
    • Generating, at the information apparatus, an intermediate output data that includes a rasterized image.
    • Transmitting the intermediate output data to an output device for rendering.

U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903 - "Output systems, such as television controllers, televisions, display devices, or audio output devices, operable for playing digital content wirelessly received either from a digital content service over the Internet or wirelessly received from a client device that is in the same network as the output system"

  • Issued: June 8, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the difficulty users face in conveniently outputting content from mobile devices to various output devices, particularly in environments where pre-installing specific drivers is not feasible (’903 Patent, col. 2:20-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an output system (e.g., a television) that can wirelessly receive digital content for playback ('903 Patent, Abstract). The system can obtain authentication information to access a network service, receive a list of available digital content, receive a user's selection from that list, and then receive and play the selected content from the service ('903 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology describes a foundational architecture for modern smart TVs and streaming devices that connect to internet-based content services to provide on-demand media to users (Compl. ¶31, ¶40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶88).
  • Claim 8, a system claim, recites an output system comprising:
    • One or more processors and wireless communication circuitry.
    • The system is operable to obtain authentication information for accessing a service.
    • Receive a list of digital content available from the service for selection.
    • Receive an indication of selected digital content from the list.
    • Receive output data related to the selected content.
    • Play audio or video data related to the received output data at an output device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Hisense and Sharp branded televisions and projectors, particularly those running Android TV, Google TV, or VIDAA software; certain Hisense soundbars; and the Hisense RemoteNOW and Hisense Screen Share mobile applications (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶33). The complaint lists numerous specific model numbers (Compl. ¶33, pp. 14-16).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are smart TVs, projectors, and soundbars that connect to the internet to stream digital media content from various services (Compl. ¶31, ¶32). They run operating systems like Google TV, Android TV, and VIDAA, which provide the user interface and network connectivity for accessing and playing content (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges Defendants comprise one of the largest electronics manufacturers in the United States (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint incorporates by reference exemplary claim charts in Exhibits 5 and 6, which are not included with the complaint document (Compl. ¶72, ¶80, ¶89). The infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

  • '233 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused TVs/Projectors directly infringe claims 1 and/or 37 by performing the claimed methods of receiving and processing digital content for output (Compl. ¶79). It further alleges that Hisense induces its customers to infringe by providing instructions and customer support that encourage users to operate the Accused TVs/Projectors in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶81, ¶84). The core of this allegation appears to be that the smart TV systems receive digital content (either from a service or a local device) and process it into a displayable format, thereby practicing the claimed methods.
  • '903 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused TVs/Projectors directly infringe claim 8 because they constitute "output systems" that perform the claimed functions (Compl. ¶88). The theory is that the accused smart TVs, with their operating systems, obtain authentication to access services (e.g., streaming apps), present a list of content to the user (e.g., a content library or menu), receive the user's selection, and then receive and play the corresponding media stream (Compl. ¶31, ¶33). The complaint also alleges inducement of customers through instructions and user support (Compl. ¶90, ¶93).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’233 Patent, a question may arise as to whether a modern video stream received by a smart TV constitutes the "intermediate output data" that includes a "rasterized output image" as described in the patent. The defense may argue that streamed data is in a final, compressed video format (e.g., H.264/H.265) rather than the specific intermediate, partially-processed format contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’903 Patent, a key question will be whether the sequence of operations in the Accused Products maps precisely onto the elements of claim 8. This may involve analyzing the specific data exchanges between the TV, its operating system, and streaming service backends to determine if they align with the claimed steps of obtaining "authentication information," receiving a "list of digital content," and then receiving "output data."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "intermediate output data" (’233 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis for the '233 Patent. The dispute may turn on whether the data received by the accused TVs (e.g., a compressed video stream) meets the definition of an "intermediate" format that requires further processing, as opposed to a final format ready for decoding and display. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to define the specific technical approach of sharing the processing load between two devices.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes "intermediate output data" as potentially including "one or more of a page description language, a markup language, a graphics format, an imaging format, a metafile among others" ('233 Patent, col. 11:29-33). This broad list could support an argument that various data formats, not just one specific type, can qualify.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states that in a "preferred embodiment," the "intermediate output data contains rasterized image data" ('233 Patent, col. 12:1-2). This could support a narrower construction requiring the data to be in a raster image format, potentially excluding common compressed video stream formats.
  • The Term: "authentication information" (’903 Patent, claim 8)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement requires the accused "output system" to "obtain authentication information for accessing the service." The scope of what constitutes "authentication information" will be a key point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern devices use various authentication methods, from user-level passwords to device-level certificates, and the required type is not specified in the claim itself.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification, in a related context, mentions security requirements can include "one or more of a user name, a password, an ID number, a PIN, an IP address, a device identification, a security key, a biometric, a fingerprint, or a voice" ('903 Patent, see U.S. Patent No. 8,169,649, col. 43:5-9, incorporated by reference). This extensive list could support a broad interpretation covering many forms of authentication.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opponent might argue that in the context of accessing a "service," the term implies user-specific credentials (like a login/password for a streaming account) rather than passive, device-level identifiers that are exchanged automatically without user interaction. The specification's description of a user wanting to "print out transaction confirmation" from an "e-commerce site" suggests a context of active user sessions ('903 Patent, col. 1:47-51).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe both patents (Compl. ¶81, ¶90). The allegations are based on Defendant providing product manuals, websites, marketing materials, and customer support that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶62, ¶84, ¶93).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶69, ¶86, ¶95). The complaint asserts that Defendant received notice letters on October 14, 2021, and December 29, 2021, which identified the patents and accused products, and that Defendant's subsequent infringing activities were deliberate and egregious (Compl. ¶63, ¶64).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the accused smart TV platforms, which receive and decode standardized, compressed video streams (e.g., MPEG, HEVC), practice the specific methods of the '233 Patent, which describe generating a "rasterized" and "intermediate" data format to share processing load between devices?
  • A key question of claim scope will determine the outcome for the '903 Patent: Can the elements of claim 8, such as obtaining "authentication information" and receiving a "list of digital content," be construed broadly enough to read on the complex, multi-party data exchanges that occur between a modern smart TV, its operating system, and a third-party streaming application's backend infrastructure?
  • An evidentiary question of willfulness will be central to damages: Given the explicit pre-suit notice alleged in the complaint, what steps, if any, did Defendant take to investigate the infringement claims, and can its continued sales be characterized as objectively reckless in disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights?