DCT

1:22-cv-04371

Flexiworld Tech Inc v. Hisense Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-04371, N.D. Ga., 03/07/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the foreign status of several defendants, who may be sued in any judicial district, and on the grounds that U.S.-based defendants have a regular and established place of business and have committed acts of infringement within the Northern District of Georgia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart televisions, projectors, soundbars, and associated software applications infringe a patent related to the setup and wireless reception of digital content.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for output devices, like smart TVs, to connect to a network and download software to manage the reception and playback of digital content from online services or other local devices.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement via letters on October 14, 2021, and December 29, 2021, prior to filing the original complaint in this action. The current filing is a First Amended Complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-01 ’056 Patent Priority Date
2021-08-17 ’056 Patent Issue Date
2021-10-14 Plaintiff allegedly sends first notice letter to Defendant
2021-12-29 Plaintiff allegedly sends second notice letter to Defendant
2022-01-XX Defendant allegedly launches Google TV-enabled televisions
2023-03-07 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,096,056 - Output devices, such as televisions, output controllers, or audio output devices, that are setup to wirelessly receive digital content from a digital content service over the Internet or from a wireless information apparatus that is in the same network as the output devices

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty for users, particularly those with mobile devices, to output content to peripherals like printers or displays because of the need to find and install a specific, device-dependent driver for each output device (’056 Patent, col. 2:31-44). This process is described as inconvenient and a barrier to mobile computing, especially given the limited storage and processing power of early mobile devices (Compl. ¶40; ’056 Patent, col. 3:52-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an output device (e.g., a television) that automates its own setup. The device connects to a wireless network, then connects to a server to download and install its own application software, which upgrades or modifies its capabilities. This allows the device to then receive and play digital content from an online service or another device on the network, shifting the setup burden from the user's mobile device to the output device itself (’056 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:45-67).
  • Technical Importance: This approach decouples the content source (e.g., a mobile phone) from the output device's specific software requirements, a foundational concept for modern "casting" and smart device ecosystems where users expect seamless connectivity without manual driver installation (Compl. ¶40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (’056 Patent, col. 41:40-44:2; Compl. ¶74).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A wireless output device (such as a television).
    • An interface for user interaction.
    • Operating system software to facilitate downloading and installing application software.
    • One or more processors and wireless communication circuitry.
    • The device is operable to perform a sequence of steps: (i) connect to a wireless local area network; (ii) download application software from a server; (iii) install that software; (iv) broadcast its availability for discovery by a mobile apparatus; (v) transmit device-dependent attributes to that apparatus; (vi) establish a wireless link with it; (vii) receive "intermediate output data" from it; and (viii) process that data for output.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products include a wide range of Hisense and Sharp-branded televisions and projectors, certain soundbars, and the Hisense RemoteNOW and Hisense Screen Share mobile applications (collectively, "the Accused Products") (Compl. ¶33, pp. 14-16).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused televisions and projectors are smart devices that operate on software platforms such as Android TV, Google TV, or VIDAA OS (Compl. ¶33). These platforms enable the devices to connect to the internet via Wi-Fi, download and install applications (e.g., streaming services), and receive content wirelessly from mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶31-33). The complaint positions the Hisense Group as one of the largest electronics manufacturers, with products sold through major national retailers like Best Buy, Walmart, and Amazon (Compl. ¶¶8, 29).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit 4, which was not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶67). The following summary table is based on the infringement theory for Claim 1 as constructed from the complaint's narrative allegations.

’056 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A wireless output device that is at least one of a television... The Accused Products include Hisense-branded televisions and projectors. ¶33 col. 41:40-45
operating system software to facilitate download and installation of application software or software components... The accused televisions operate using Android TV, Google TV, or VIDAA OS, which are operating systems that manage the download and installation of applications like streaming services. ¶33 col. 41:49-52
(i) connecting the wireless output device... to a wireless local area network; The accused televisions are configured to connect to a user's home Wi-Fi network to access the internet. ¶79 col. 42:1-5
(ii) downloading, by the wireless output device... the application software or the software components from one or more servers... The accused televisions download applications (e.g., Netflix, YouTube TV) from application stores (e.g., Google Play Store) hosted on remote servers. ¶31, ¶33 col. 42:6-12
(iii) installing, at the wireless output device... the application software or the software components downloaded in (ii)... The operating systems on the accused televisions install the downloaded applications, which modifies the capabilities of the television. ¶33, ¶64 col. 43:3-9
(vii) wirelessly receiving... intermediate output data from the mobile information apparatus... The Accused Apps (e.g., Hisense Screen Share) allegedly enable a mobile device to transmit content to the accused televisions, which receive this data for processing and display. ¶33, ¶76 col. 43:48-53
(viii) processing, by the wireless output device... at least part of the intermediate output data wirelessly received in (vii) into output data... The accused televisions process the received wireless data (e.g., a video stream) and convert it into a format that can be rendered on the device's display screen. ¶74, ¶76 col. 43:59-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "wireless output device" as defined by a patent with a 2000 priority date and a background focused on printing peripherals can be construed to cover a modern smart television whose primary function is media consumption.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation relies on a specific sequence of operations where the television sends "device dependent attributes" to a mobile device before receiving "intermediate output data" back from it. A key technical question will be whether the accused casting or screen sharing functionality operates according to this specific claimed sequence, or if it follows a different protocol.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"wireless output device"

Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. Defendants may argue that the patent's specification, with its heavy emphasis on solving problems related to printing, limits the scope of "output device" to peripherals that render static documents, not devices for dynamic media playback like a smart TV. Plaintiff will likely counter that the claim language itself explicitly includes "a television."

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim explicitly recites "A wireless output device that is at least one of a television, an external output controller... a display device, a projector, an audio output device, a printing device, or a speaker" (’056 Patent, col. 41:40-45). The abstract also lists "televisions, speakers, projectors" (’056 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background of the Disclosure" section focuses almost exclusively on the problems of printing and outputting documents from mobile devices, framing the problem in that context (’056 Patent, col. 2:9–col. 4:67).

"intermediate output data"

Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether standard streaming or casting protocols fall within the claim scope. The dispute may center on whether a standard video stream (e.g., H.264/H.265) sent from a phone to a TV constitutes the "intermediate output data" contemplated by the patent.

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that the data be "related to digital content that is for outputting or playing at the wireless output device" (’056 Patent, col. 43:51-53). This language does not appear to impose structural or format limitations beyond its relation to the content.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses "intermediate output data" in the context of a "rasterized image" and describes a process where device-dependent image processing (like halftoning) has not yet been performed, distinguishing it from final, device-ready data (’056 Patent, col. 28:41-50). This could support an argument that a fully encoded video stream is not "intermediate" in the manner described.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing user manuals, customer support, and marketing materials that instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes, such as connecting the TVs to a network and using the accused mobile applications (Compl. ¶¶57, 76, 79).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’056 Patent. The complaint states that Defendant received notice letters identifying the patent and the accused products on October 14, 2021, and December 29, 2021, and yet continued its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶58-62, 81).

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

  • A core issue will be one of temporal and technological scope: can claims originating from an invention conceived in 2000 to solve problems in mobile printing be construed to cover the functionality of modern smart televisions and content casting ecosystems that evolved more than a decade later? The outcome will likely depend on the construction of key terms such as "wireless output device" and "intermediate output data".
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: does the accused functionality, such as screen sharing from a mobile app to a television, actually follow the multi-step protocol required by Claim 1, particularly the sequence of the television transmitting "device dependent attributes" to the mobile device before receiving "intermediate output data" from it? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove this specific technical sequence occurs in the accused system.