Innobrilliance LLC v. Hisense USA Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Innobrilliance, LLC (TX)
  • Defendant: Hisense USA Corporation (GA)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Advanced Technology Law
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05982, N.D. Ga., 12/30/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Northern District of Georgia and allegedly committing acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s television products infringe a patent related to methods and systems for organizing and displaying groups of television channels based on a shared attribute.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of navigating the large number of channels available on modern television platforms by enabling the creation and display of themed channel groups.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-04-02	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 9,247,299
2016-01-26	U.S. Patent 9,247,299 Issued
2024-12-30	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,247,299 - "Method and system for television channel group," issued January 26, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "daunting task" for users of navigating the potentially thousands of channels available through cable, satellite, and internet video services, especially in a multi-picture viewing environment (’299 Patent, col. 2:5-7). Existing solutions like simple favorite lists are described as inadequate for managing and discovering content efficiently (’299 Patent, col. 2:22-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system centered on a "frame controller" that organizes television channels into a "channel group" where all channels share a "common attribute," such as genre (sports, news), ethnicity, or age appropriateness (’299 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:8-14). This system can then display multiple video streams from the selected channel group simultaneously in separate pictures on a television screen, facilitating easier access to related content (’299 Patent, col. 8:40-56). Figure 4 illustrates a frame controller (450) presenting a channel group (460) for display in a multi-picture frame (420).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve user experience by imposing a thematic structure on an otherwise overwhelming number of content streams, a significant usability issue with the proliferation of digital and IP-based television (’299 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in an external chart (Compl. ¶11), but does not specify them in the body of the complaint. Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claims.
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • A television system with an input interface and a frame controller.
  • The frame controller causes video data to be displayed in a plurality of pictures on a display.
  • The frame controller receives a first user selection to display a "video group" related to an "attribute."
  • The frame controller receives and displays video streams from that group in a first and second picture.
  • The frame controller receives a second user selection to change the display in a given picture to a different video stream from the same video group that is not currently being displayed.
  • The frame controller then displays the newly selected video stream in the given picture.
• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, suggesting the potential assertion of additional independent or dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "the charts incorporated into this Count below" (Compl. ¶11). These charts are part of Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused products. It makes the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’299 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint also notes that Defendant’s own employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products," which is alleged to be an act of direct infringement (Compl. ¶12). No allegations regarding the products' specific market position are included.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that it incorporates by reference claim charts contained in Exhibit 2, which compare the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶16-17). As Exhibit 2 was not filed with the public complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on Plaintiff's specific allegations is not possible.

The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant directly infringes the ’299 Patent by making, using, selling, and importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint also alleges direct infringement occurs when Defendant's employees internally test the products (Compl. ¶12). The substantive basis for these allegations rests entirely on the unprovided charts in Exhibit 2.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "video group related to an attribute" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the functionality in Hisense’s products for organizing or presenting channels can be properly characterized as creating a "video group" based on an "attribute." Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will dictate whether modern features like algorithmically generated "for you" lists, in addition to explicit genre categories, fall within the claim scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential attributes, including "sports, news, or movies," "ethnicity, language or culture," and "age appropriateness" (’299 Patent, col. 3:8-14). It further states that "There are numerous attributes about which channel groups may be formed, all of which are not enumerated herein," which may support a broad definition of "attribute" (’299 Patent, col. 9:39-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The examples provided throughout the patent are consistently well-defined, human-recognizable categories (e.g., Fig. 5a shows groups for "Sports," "News," "Movies") (’299 Patent, col. 9:15-20). A party could argue that an "attribute" must be a pre-defined, explicit characteristic, rather than a dynamic or implicit grouping like a user's viewing history or a list of favorites.

• The Term: "receives a second user selection to change the display in a given picture...to a given video stream of the video group" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific, two-step user interaction: first, displaying a group, and second, swapping a channel within that multi-picture display for another channel from the same group that is not currently visible. Infringement will require showing that the accused products’ user interface facilitates this precise operational sequence.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that any user action that results in replacing one channel in a group view with another from that same group's master list meets this limitation, regardless of the specific UI controls used.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue this language requires a specific workflow where a user selects a picture within the multi-view frame and is then presented with a menu of the remaining channels from that specific group to choose a replacement. This could be distinguished from a general "channel up/down" function that simply cycles through all available channels. The patent describes this operation as selecting a picture and then selecting a "second channel" to display in its place (’299 Patent, col. 10:52-67).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement. This allegation is based on Defendant having knowledge of the patent "at least since being served by this Complaint" and continuing to sell products while distributing "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: While the word "willful" is not used, the complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant’s infringing conduct continues "Despite such actual knowledge" (Compl. ¶14). These allegations lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement to support a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "video group related to an attribute," which is described in the patent using explicit categories like "sports" and "news," be construed broadly enough to read on the specific channel organization or recommendation features implemented in Defendant's modern smart TV interfaces? The answer will likely depend on claim construction.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: assuming the claim charts (in the unprovided Exhibit 2) show some form of channel grouping, does the accused user interface actually perform the specific, multi-step user interaction recited in the claims? Specifically, the court will need to determine if users can first select a group for display and then make a second, distinct selection to replace a displayed channel with another non-displayed channel from that same group. A mismatch in this operational flow could present a significant hurdle for the infringement case.