DCT
6:25-cv-06516
Alexander v. Corning Glass Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jerry D. Alexander (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Corning Incorporated (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00626, W.D. Tex., 12/30/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Corning has manufacturing and servicing locations, facilities, and employees within the district, and has sold or offered to sell the accused products in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Living Hinge" products, which incorporate high-strength transparent materials like Gorilla Glass for applications such as vehicle dashboards and mobile phones, infringe a patent related to combining resilient transparent materials with embedded display capabilities.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on advanced materials science for display technology, specifically the integration of electronic display arrays (such as OLEDs) with durable, transparent substrates intended to be more resilient than traditional glass or plastic.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the asserted patent issued without any "fundamental or art-based claim amendments," a statement that may be intended to preemptively argue against certain prosecution history estoppel defenses that could narrow claim scope.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-05-22 | ’489 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-06-15 | ’489 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-06-15 | Alleged Infringement Begins |
| 2024-12-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,037,489 - High Strength Transparent Articles With Digital Display Arrays And Capabilities
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,037,489, "High Strength Transparent Articles With Digital Display Arrays And Capabilities," issued June 15, 2021 (’489 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that conventional transparent materials used for displays, such as glass or plastic, are susceptible to damage like cracking, chipping, or scratching, and protective measures can compromise the viewable nature of the article (’489 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a display article built on a base structure of a "highly resilient transparent material," such as transparent aluminum alloy, transparent wood, or transparent ceramic spinel. A transparent film containing light-emitting components (e.g., OLEDs) is coupled to this base structure, creating a durable article capable of displaying images and text through the resilient material (’489 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-24). The system is controlled by a wireless unit that sends data to the display.
- Technical Importance: The technology purports to enable the creation of "super-tough screens and displays" that offer high resilience against breakage and scratching while providing integrated, effective graphic display capabilities (’489 Patent, col. 2:50-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’489 Patent are asserted. Independent claim 1 is the only independent claim in the patent.
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A base structure made of a transparent material selected from a specific group: "transparent aluminum alloy, transparent exotic material, transparent wood, transparent ceramic spinel, and transparent invisible metal."
- A transparent film that emits light via organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and LED sensors to display letters, numbers, messages, or images.
- The transparent film is coupled to the base structure (e.g., embedded within, laminated to, attached to).
- A "wireless portable unit with image display" is attached directly to the transparent film to display input commands.
- The unit includes a power console with a smart digital controller configured to send data to the display.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Living Hinge" products and "other infringing consumer products that include similar functionality" (Compl. ¶7, ¶16). Specific applications mentioned are "vehicle dashboards as well as mobile telephones" (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products include "high-strength transparent materials (exotic materials such as Gorilla® Glass technology) with embedded OLED films therein and processors connected thereto for displays to be externally viewed" (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the structure or operation of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations. The following summary maps the general allegations to the elements of independent claim 1 of the ’489 Patent.
’489 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| i) a base structure of a transparent material selected from the group of transparent aluminum alloy, transparent exotic material, transparent wood, transparent ceramic spinel, and transparent invisible metal, | The accused "Living Hinge" products allegedly include "high-strength transparent materials (exotic materials such as Gorilla® Glass technology)." | ¶7 | col. 5:46-50 |
| ii) a transparent film emits organic light emitting diodes and LED sensors, while further emitting visible letters, numbers, messages, graphic images... | The accused products allegedly include "embedded OLED films therein" for displays. | ¶7 | col. 5:50-54 |
| wherein said transparent film is coupled to said base structure... | The complaint alleges the accused products have "embedded OLED films therein." | ¶7 | col. 5:55-59 |
| and iii) a wireless portable unit with image display is attached directly to said transparent film... wherein said unit includes a power console with a smart digital controller... configured to send data to said display. | The complaint alleges the accused products have "processors connected thereto for displays to be externally viewed." The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific controller and wireless unit limitations. | ¶7 | col. 6:2-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether Corning’s materials, such as "Gorilla® Glass technology," fall within the scope of the claimed Markush group of materials ("transparent aluminum alloy, transparent exotic material, transparent wood, transparent ceramic spinel, and transparent invisible metal"). The definition of "exotic material" and "invisible metal" may be central to this dispute.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products contain the specific controller architecture recited in claim 1, namely a "wireless portable unit with image display... attached directly to said transparent film" that is separate from but includes a "power console with a smart digital controller." The complaint’s general allegation of "processors connected thereto" may not map directly onto this detailed claim structure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a base structure of a transparent material selected from the group of transparent aluminum alloy, transparent exotic material, transparent wood, transparent ceramic spinel, and transparent invisible metal"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the invention. The infringement case may depend entirely on whether Corning's "Gorilla® Glass technology" (Compl. ¶7) is found to be one of the materials in this closed group (a Markush group). Practitioners may focus on whether "exotic material" can be construed broadly enough to cover Corning's aluminosilicate glass products.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "exotic materials" as "topological insulators as ultra-thin sheets... that remains transparent and exhibits high conductance" (’489 Patent, col. 2:35-39). Plaintiff may argue this functional definition is broad and not limited to specific compositions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the term is limited by the specific examples provided in the patent (transparent aluminum, wood, spinel) and that "Gorilla Glass," a type of strengthened glass, is a distinct and well-known material class not contemplated by the patent, which contrasts its invention with "standard glass or plastic articles" (’489 Patent, col. 2:48-49).
The Term: "wireless portable unit with image display is attached directly to said transparent film"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific component of the claimed control system. The method of attachment ("attached directly") and the nature of the "wireless portable unit" will be critical. If the accused products integrate control processors differently (e.g., within the device housing rather than attached to the film), it could be a basis for a non-infringement defense.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may point to the system diagram in Figure 13, which shows separate but connected controller blocks, to argue that "attached directly" implies functional electronic connection rather than requiring physical lamination or bonding.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the plain meaning of "attached directly to said transparent film" requires a physical connection, distinguishing it from other components that are merely in electronic communication. The use of terms like "embedded within, laminated to the surface of, attached to, applied to" elsewhere in the patent suggests the patentee used such terms with specific structural meanings (’489 Patent, col. 2:18-20).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s customers directly infringe by operating the accused products "in accordance with instructions provided by Corning" (Compl. ¶9). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting Corning sells components that "embody a material part of the inventions... and are not staple articles of commerce" (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Corning having had "actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’489 Patent since no later than June 15, 2021," the date the patent issued (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit notification or other facts to support this assertion of knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's answers to several fundamental questions:
- A core issue will be one of material scope: Can the Markush group of materials in Claim 1, which includes terms like "transparent exotic material," be construed to cover advanced glass compositions like Corning’s "Gorilla Glass," or is it limited to the non-glass material classes explicitly described in the specification?
- A second key issue will be one of architectural correspondence: Does the control system of the accused "Living Hinge" products meet the specific structural and functional requirements of a "wireless portable unit with image display... attached directly to said transparent film," as claimed, or is there a material difference in their configuration?
- Finally, a threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Do the complaint’s high-level allegations, which lack specific product model numbers and detailed mapping to claim limitations, provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under prevailing federal pleading standards?