DCT
1:25-cv-04545
Buffalo Games LLC v. Simplytech Electronics Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Buffalo Games, LLC (New York)
- Defendant: SimplyTech Electronics, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04545, S.D.N.Y., 05/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in New York, conducts significant business within the Southern District of New York, and has a service of process address in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Doodle Pad" electronic writing tablets infringe a patent related to multicolored, pressure-sensitive liquid crystal display technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable, low-power electronic writing surfaces that can display multiple colors in response to pressure from a stylus, aiming to replicate the experience of using colored pens on paper without the associated waste.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was originally owned by Kent Displays, Inc. (KDI), which sent a notice letter to Defendant in August 2024. Plaintiff Buffalo Games acquired the patent from KDI in 2025 and subsequently sent its own notice letter to Defendant in April 2025. The complaint frames Defendant's subsequent communications as "delaying tactics" to support a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-12-16 | Priority Date for ’672 Patent |
| 2018-03-27 | ’672 Patent Issued |
| 2024-08-14 | KDI (prior owner) sent notice letter to SimplyTech |
| 2025-03-18 | Assignment of ’672 Patent to Buffalo Games recorded |
| 2025-04-02 | Buffalo Games sent notice letter to SimplyTech |
| 2025-04-11 | SimplyTech responded to Buffalo Games' letter |
| 2025-05-02 | Buffalo Games sent follow-up email to SimplyTech |
| 2025-05-09 | SimplyTech's counsel responded to Buffalo Games |
| 2025-05-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,927,672 - "Multicolored pressure sensitive liquid crystal device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,927,672, "Multicolored pressure sensitive liquid crystal device," issued March 27, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market need for low-cost, low-power, and rugged electronic devices that can capture and display colorful, hand-drawn images to mimic the use of colored pens on paper without the associated expense and material waste (U.S. Patent No. 9,927,672, col. 1:7-25). It notes the limitations of prior art devices which were often limited to a single color or required complex and expensive structures to produce a multicolor effect (’672 Patent, col. 5:3-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem with a device that uses a single pressure-sensitive liquid crystal layer capable of producing multiple colors. This is achieved by creating different regions within that single layer, with each region being tuned to reflect a different color of light when pressure is applied (’672 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:1-9). When a user draws with a stylus, the localized pressure alters the liquid crystal's texture, causing it to reflect the pre-tuned color for that region, thereby creating a multicolor image without requiring voltage to form the mark (’672 Patent, col. 1:49-58).
- Technical Importance: This single-layer, multi-region approach could offer a more streamlined and potentially less expensive manufacturing process for multicolor electronic writers compared to alternatives that rely on stacked liquid crystal layers or patterned color filters (’672 Patent, col. 6:27-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- Essential elements of Claim 1:
- A flexible, transparent first substrate and a second substrate spaced apart from the first.
- First and second electrically conductive layers disposed between the substrates.
- A pressure-sensitive liquid crystal layer, comprising a dispersion of cholesteric liquid crystal and polymer, disposed between the conductive layers.
- The liquid crystal layer includes at least a first color region and a second color region, each adapted to reflect light of a different color.
- Pressure applied to the first substrate causes a change in the liquid crystal's reflectance, displaying the respective colors in each region to form a multicolor image, where voltage is not applied to form that image.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "Doodle Pad LCD Drawing Board" products (the “Doodle Pad” products) (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are electronic writing tablets marketed for children (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that a user can draw or write on the device by pressing a stylus against the screen, which causes the device to display "vibrant colorful text" (Compl. p. 6, Screenshot). A product description included in the complaint highlights features such as a "screen lock function," a "quick erase button," and "vibrant colorful text" (Compl. p. 6, Screenshot). A marketing image shows the product packaging, which explicitly advertises "Colorful Text" as a feature (Compl. p. 3, Figure). The complaint alleges these products are sold through various online retailers (Compl. ¶13-14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’672 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A multicolored pressure sensitive liquid crystal device comprising: | The Doodle Pad products are multicolored devices with a pressure sensitive LCD screen on which a user can draw by pressing a stylus. | ¶26 | col. 17:51-52 |
| a first transparent substrate that is flexible on which a pressure is applied and a second substrate spaced apart from said first substrate | The products have a transparent and flexible outer surface (first substrate) and a second substrate spaced apart on the inside. | ¶28 | col. 17:53-56 |
| a first electrically conductive layer and a second electrically conductive layer that are disposed between said first substrate and said second substrate...said first electrically conductive layer being transparent | The products have first and second electrically conductive layers between the substrates, with the first layer being transparent. | ¶30 | col. 17:57-62 |
| a pressure sensitive liquid crystal layer comprising a dispersion of cholesteric liquid crystal and polymer... | The products have a pressure sensitive liquid crystal layer with a dispersion of cholesteric liquid crystal and polymer. | ¶32 | col. 17:63-col. 18:2 |
| wherein said liquid crystal layer includes at least a first color region and a second color region...said first color region being adapted to reflect light of a first color and said second color region being adapted to reflect light of a second color | The products have multiple color regions that each reflect light of different colors. This is demonstrated by a product image showing a drawing with multiple distinct colors (Compl. p. 7, Figure). | ¶34 | col. 18:3-8 |
| wherein the pressure applied...results in a change in reflectance...to form a multicolor image, wherein voltage is not applied to form the multicolor image | Pressure applied by a user results in a change in reflectance, causing the liquid crystal to change color across the different color regions to form a multicolor image. | ¶36 | col. 18:9-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the claim phrase "dispersion of cholesteric liquid crystal and polymer." The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the Doodle Pad contains this material but offers no specific evidence of its internal composition (Compl. ¶32). The actual material science of the accused device will be a key factual issue.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the multicolor effect is achieved through different "color regions" within the liquid crystal layer itself (Compl. ¶34). A primary technical question for the court will be whether the accused device operates this way, as required by the claim, or if it achieves a multicolor effect through an alternative mechanism, such as using a uniform liquid crystal layer in combination with a separate, underlying color filter layer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "wherein said liquid crystal layer includes at least a first color region and a second color region"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core novelty of the patent—achieving a multicolor display from a single layer structured with different color-reflecting properties. The entire infringement case may hinge on whether the accused product’s architecture falls within the scope of this phrase.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that this language should cover any single liquid crystal layer that is engineered to produce different colors in different spatial locations, regardless of the precise physical mechanism. The claim language itself does not specify how the regions are formed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue the term is limited by the specification, which describes a specific method of creating these regions by placing different uncured liquid crystal mixtures (with different chiral dopants) in different areas and then curing them to lock in the color-reflecting properties (’672 Patent, col. 12:25-31). This could support an argument that architectures not using this method, such as those with color filters, are not covered.
The Term: "wherein voltage is not applied to form the multicolor image"
Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the claimed "Mode B" writing method from displays that require active electronic signals to create an image. Infringement depends on whether the accused device forms marks solely through pressure-induced changes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this "Mode B" operation as occurring "without further application of voltage" after an initial state is set (’672 Patent, col. 4:27-35). A party may argue this term simply means that the act of writing itself is a passive, pressure-only mechanism, distinct from voltage-driven erasure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that if the accused device's circuitry uses any electrical signal correlated with stylus pressure to help form a mark, it would fall outside the scope of this limitation, even if the user perceives the action as simply "pressing" on the screen.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's infringement count focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶23). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’672 Patent. The specific facts cited are a notice letter sent by the patent's prior owner (KDI) in August 2024 and a subsequent letter from Plaintiff in April 2025, followed by what Plaintiff characterizes as "two month delaying tactics" (Compl. ¶15-21, ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused "Doodle Pad" product achieve its multicolor display via a single liquid crystal layer containing inherent, spatially-differentiated color-reflecting regions as claimed, or does it utilize an alternative architecture, such as a uniform liquid crystal layer paired with a sub-layer of color filters? Discovery into the device's specific construction will be determinative.
- A second issue will be one of claim construction: the dispute will likely focus on whether the term "liquid crystal layer includes... a first color region and a second color region" is limited to the specific embodiment described in the patent (i.e., varying chiral dopant concentrations) or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other methods of engineering a single layer to produce multiple colors.
- Finally, a key factual question regarding damages will be the character of the defendant's conduct. The court will need to assess whether SimplyTech's response to multiple, specific notice letters from both the prior and current patent owners rises to the level of objective recklessness required to support a finding of willful infringement.