DCT

2:16-cv-00932

Innovative Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00932, E.D. Tex., 08/24/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, conduct business, make sales, and operate offices within the district. The complaint also alleges that certain defendants have effectively consented to venue by participating in prior litigation in the district on related patents.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ display products, including televisions, monitors, and mobile devices containing LCD backlights, infringe two patents related to light-emitting panel assemblies.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns backlight units for liquid crystal displays (LCDs), a foundational component for achieving thin, power-efficient, and high-quality electronic displays.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents’ prior owner, Rambus, provided notice and offered licenses to Defendants LGD, VIZIO, and ASUS between 2012 and 2013. It also notes that Plaintiff has previously sued other similarly situated liquid crystal display module suppliers, and that Defendant LGD has taken over the defense of its customers in prior litigation involving related patents in the same district.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-06-27 Priority Date for ’730 and ’965 Patents
2007-02-20 ’965 Patent Issued
2008-01-29 ’730 Patent Issued
2012-04-01 Alleged first notice to VIZIO of patent portfolio
2012-10-01 Alleged first notice to ASUS of patent portfolio
2013-02-08 Alleged notice letter sent to LGD
2013-02-21 Alleged response from LGD to notice letter
2013-06-26 Plaintiff IDT assigned rights to patents-in-suit
2016-08-24 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,322,730 - "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," Issued January 29, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon known light emitting panel assemblies by creating backlights that have "increased uniformity and higher light output... with lower power requirements" and can be made "thinner and/or longer" (’730 Patent, col. 2:2-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an optical assembly where a light emitter is paired with a separate transparent film or sheet. This film has a "pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions" on its surface, such as microscopic projections or depressions (’730 Patent, col. 1:44-48). These deformities are precisely varied across the film to control the angle and uniformity of light emission, and the film itself is colored or tinted to "effect a change in color or color correction" (’730 Patent, col. 1:52-55).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for fine control over backlight characteristics, enabling the production of thinner, more uniform, and more power-efficient LCDs. (’730 Patent, col. 2:2-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint primarily references independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Independent Claim 10 requires:
    • A backlight assembly comprising a light emitter having at least one light emitting area,
    • a separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light emitting area with an air gap therebetween,
    • a pattern of deformities on at least one side of the sheet or film,
    • the deformities varying at different locations on the sheet or film to direct the light...such that the light will pass through a liquid crystal with low loss,
    • wherein the separate transparent sheet or film also causes a change in color or color correction in the assembly.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 7,178,965 - "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies Having LEDs Of Multiple Colors," Issued February 20, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of using multiple colored light sources, such as different colored LEDs, to produce a single, uniform colored or white light output for a backlight. (’965 Patent, col. 1:59-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a light-emitting assembly with a "hollow area" containing multiple light sources (e.g., red, green, and blue LEDs). A "transparent transition member" associated with the light sources uses reflective or refractive surfaces to mix the different colors of light before the combined light enters the main light-emitting panel. An additional sheet with "optical deformities" is placed over the panel's surface to further control the final light output for an application, such as illuminating an LCD. (’965 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:13-24).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enables the use of efficient, multi-color LEDs to create backlights with superior color gamut, adjustable white points, and better power efficiency compared to earlier technologies. (’965 Patent, col. 4:32-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint primarily references independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A light emitting assembly comprising a light emitting panel member having a light emitting surface,
    • a hollow area containing a plurality of light sources,
    • a transparent transition member associated with each light source, having reflective or refractive means exterior of the light sources to redirect a portion of the light,
    • at least one sheet, film or substrate with a plurality of optical deformities, positioned parallel to the light emitting surface to further redirect the light,
    • and a liquid crystal display positioned in close proximity to the sheet, film or substrate.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "display products," which include "mobile phones, tablets, televisions, monitors, laptops, and liquid crystal display modules ('LCMs')" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint further identifies two sub-categories of accused backlights within these products: "edge-lit backlights" and "2-D array backlights" (Compl. ¶31). Specific LGD-manufactured LCMs are identified as examples, such as the LC550DUH-SCM1 (edge-lit) and LC420DUE-SFU1 (2-D array) (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these backlights are incorporated into end-user products sold by LGE, VIZIO, and Asus (Compl. ¶31). The accused technology is presented as fundamental to creating improved products with desirable market features such as being thinner and having "a more uniform light output, a lower power requirement, and/or a longer battery life" (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’730 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A backlight assembly comprising a light emitter having at least one light emitting area... The accused edge-lit and 2-D array backlights are alleged to include a light emitter with at least one light emitting area. ¶32, ¶39 col. 1:19-23
a separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light emitting area with an air gap therebetween... The accused products are alleged to have a separate transparent sheet or film that overlays the light emitting area with an air gap. ¶32, ¶39 col. 5:50-53
a pattern of deformities on at least one side of the sheet or film... The sheet or film in the accused products is alleged to have a pattern of deformities. ¶32, ¶39 col. 4:40-45
the deformities varying at different locations...to direct the light...such that the light will pass through a liquid crystal with low loss... The deformities allegedly vary in location to direct light through a liquid crystal with low loss. ¶32, ¶39 col. 5:22-31
wherein the separate transparent sheet or film also causes a change in color or color correction in the assembly. The film or sheet in the accused products is alleged to cause a change in color or color correction. ¶32, ¶39 col. 5:61-63
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A central question will be whether the accused products' optical films perform the dual functions required by claim 10: (1) directing light via varying deformities for "low loss" transmission and (2) simultaneously causing "a change in color or color correction." The defense may argue that these are separate functions performed by distinct components in their assemblies.
    • Scope Question: The analysis may focus on what constitutes "deformities" and whether the features on the accused films meet that definition as construed from the patent.

’965 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a light emitting assembly comprising a light emitting panel member having a light emitting surface... The accused 2-D array backlights are alleged to include a light emitting panel member with a light emitting surface. ¶33, ¶55 col. 1:20-23
a hollow area containing a plurality of light sources... The accused 2-D array backlights allegedly have a hollow area containing multiple light sources, identified as LEDs. ¶33, ¶55 col. 9:64-66
a transparent transition member...having reflective or refractive means exterior of the light sources to redirect a portion of the light... The accused backlights are alleged to have a transparent transition member with external reflective or refractive means to redirect light from the light sources. ¶33, ¶55 col. 3:1-17
at least one sheet, film or substrate...having a plurality of optical deformities...to further redirect the light... The accused backlights allegedly have a sheet or film with optical deformities that redirects light for the specific application. ¶33, ¶55 col. 4:40-52
and a liquid crystal display positioned in close proximity to the at least one sheet, film or substrate. The accused products are alleged to have an LCD positioned in close proximity to the sheet, film, or substrate. ¶33, ¶55 col. 5:26-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: The interpretation of "transparent transition member" will be critical. The court will need to determine if this requires a discrete component or if integrated features of a backlight's housing can meet the definition, and what constitutes "reflective or refractive means exterior of the light sources."
    • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products contain a structure that functions as the claimed "transition member" to perform color mixing, as opposed to a simple cavity housing the LEDs?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "deformities" (’730 Patent, Claim 10)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core technical element for light extraction and control in the '730 patent. Its scope will determine whether various surface modification techniques (e.g., printed dots, molded micro-lenses, etched patterns) found in commercial backlights fall within the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "deformities or disruptions" very broadly to mean "any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted" (’730 Patent, col. 4:47-52).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses specific examples, such as "prismatic surfaces, depressions or raised surfaces" and printed patterns of "dots, squares, diamonds, ellipses, stars" (’730 Patent, col. 5:42-44; col. 6:62-65). A party could argue the term should be construed more narrowly in light of these specific embodiments.

  • Term: "transparent transition member" (’965 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This element is central to the alleged color mixing function of the '965 patent. Its construction is key to determining infringement, as it defines a specific structure for processing light from multiple LEDs. Practitioners may focus on this term because its presence or absence is a clear structural distinction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to a "light transition member or area" (’965 Patent, col. 3:3-4), and Figure 1 depicts it as an integral, co-planar extension of the main light panel, suggesting it does not need to be a physically separate or distinct component.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the member to have "reflective or refractive means exterior of the light sources to redirect" light (’965 Patent, col. 11:21-23). Embodiments like Figure 2 show specifically shaped surfaces (8, 9) designed to "efficiently reflect and/or refract and focus the light" (’965 Patent, col. 3:26-29). This could support an interpretation requiring a dedicated, shaped structure around the light sources, not merely a generic cavity.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It asserts that Defendants had knowledge of the patents from at least 2012-2013 and took affirmative steps to encourage infringement by their customers and end-users, such as by "creating advertisements that promote the infringing use," establishing distribution channels, and providing "instructions or manuals" for the accused products (Compl. ¶49, ¶63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It cites notice letters and licensing negotiations between the patents' prior owner and Defendants LGD, VIZIO, and ASUS dating back to 2012 (Compl. ¶41-47, ¶58-61). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants continued to "make, sell, and import" accused products despite knowing the risk of infringement, which it characterizes as "an egregious case typified by willful misconduct" (Compl. ¶48, ¶62).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "transparent transition member" from the ’965 patent be construed to read on the general internal structure of the accused 2-D array backlights, or does it require a more specific, dedicated component for color mixing that is absent in the accused products?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of dual functionality: does the evidence show that the optical films in the accused products perform both the light-directing function and the "color correction" function as required by a single element of Claim 10 of the ’730 patent, or are these functions performed by separate components or features?
  • The willfulness determination will likely depend on the specific communications during the alleged 2012-2013 licensing negotiations. The court will have to assess whether Defendants' continued sales after receiving notice constituted objective recklessness, especially in light of the complaint's allegations regarding prior litigation on related patents.