Max BLU Tech LLC v. Vinpower Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Max Blu Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Vinpower, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm P.C.; Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00344, E.D. Tex., 04/21/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts regular business, solicits customers, and has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Blu-ray recordable and re-writable optical discs infringe four patents related to a "reverse optical mastering" process used to manufacture high-density data storage disks.
• Technical Context: The patents address manufacturing methods for optical disks (like CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray Discs) that aim to overcome a fundamental trade-off between the width of data-carrying 'lands' and the depth of tracking 'grooves.'
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit belong to a large family stemming from a 1998 priority application. The family has undergone extensive prosecution, including multiple continuations and a reissue proceeding that resulted in U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,633, suggesting a thorough examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,352,685 - Reverse Optical Mastering for Data Storage Disk Replicas

• Issued: April 1, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge in conventional optical disk manufacturing for high-density formats. As tracks are placed closer together to increase data capacity, making the tracking grooves deeper (for reliable laser tracking) undesirably erodes the width of the adjacent data-carrying lands. This creates a mandatory trade-off between tracking performance and data storage area (’685 Patent, col. 3:1-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that decouples groove depth from land width. In the mastering stage, a photosensitive layer on a glass substrate is completely etched away to form master grooves whose bottoms are the ultra-smooth glass substrate itself (’685 Patent, col. 4:54-61). Through a multi-generation inverse stamping process, these wide, flat-bottomed master grooves become wide, flat-topped lands on the final replica disk, while the areas that were master lands become deep grooves on the replica disk (’685 Patent, FIG. 19; col. 11:5-48).
• Technical Importance: This "reverse mastering" approach enabled the fabrication of optical disks with both deep grooves for stable tracking and wide, smooth lands for reliable, high-density data recording, a critical enabler for formats like Blu-ray. (’685 Patent, col. 8:30-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 29 (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent Claim 1 (Product-by-Process Claim):
  • A replica disk made from a replication process that includes creation of a master disk, a first-generation stamper, and a second-generation stamper.
  • The disk comprises a replica substrate with a surface relief pattern of adjacent lands and grooves.
  • The pattern has a track pitch less than 425 nanometers.
  • The grooves extend down into the replica substrate.
  • Critically, the "land tops are wider than the groove bottoms."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 7,801,016 - Reverse Optical Mastering for Data Storage Disk Replicas

• Issued: September 21, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '685 patent, this patent addresses the same fundamental problem of the land-width versus groove-depth trade-off in conventional optical disk manufacturing (’016 Patent, col. 3:1-17).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same reverse mastering process to produce a replica disk with superior geometry for high-density data storage. The focus of the claims, however, shifts to specific, narrow dimensional ranges for the resulting physical structures (’016 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-65).
• Technical Importance: This patent provides specific dimensional targets for lands and grooves that are achievable with the reverse mastering process, defining a precise geometry for high-performance, high-density optical media. (’016 Patent, col. 8:30-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
• Independent Claim 1 (Product Claim):
  • A replica disk comprising a substrate with a surface pattern of lands and "interrupted grooves."
  • The surface pattern defines a track pitch less than 425 nanometers.
  • Tops of the lands define widths between 25 percent of the track pitch and 140 nanometers.
  • The grooves define depths between 20 and 120 nanometers.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but standard litigation practice allows for it.

U.S. Patent No. 8,593,931 - Replica Disk for Data Storage

• Issued: November 26, 2013
• Technology Synopsis: This continuation patent claims a replica disk defined by its physical structure. It focuses on specific dimensional limitations, including a track pitch less than 425 nanometers and groove depths less than 120 nanometers, to solve the same problem of optimizing land and groove geometry for high-density storage (’931 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-9).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, and 14, which includes independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: The physical characteristics of the accused Blu-ray Discs, particularly the dimensions and structure of their data tracks, lands, and grooves (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,633 - Reverse Optical Mastering for Data Storage Disk Replicas

• Issued: December 10, 2013
• Technology Synopsis: This reissued patent, part of the same family, claims a replica disk with specific structural parameters designed for high-density formats. It recites land top widths between 100 and 200 nanometers and groove depths less than 120 nanometers for a track pitch under 425 nanometers, stemming from the same reverse mastering technology (’633 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1-4, 15, 16, 18, and 19, which includes independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
• Accused Features: The physical dimensions of the lands and grooves on the accused Blu-ray Discs, which are alleged to fall within the claimed ranges (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "Blu-ray recordable and re-writable discs" (collectively, the "Accused Products") that are manufactured, sold, or distributed by Defendant Vinpower, Inc. and its subsidiaries, which include Optical Quantum, PioData, and PlexDisc (Compl. ¶7-10, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are standard high-density optical media used for data storage (Compl. ¶10). The infringement theory is based on the physical structure of these disks. The complaint references "a picture of the representative packaging for the Accused Products" as Exhibit F (Compl. ¶16). It also cites "representative analyses of the physical characteristics of three separate samples of the Accused Products" in Exhibit H as evidence of the infringing structure (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement contentions. Instead, it states that the Accused Products infringe because they possess the "physical characteristics as claimed" and points to an attached "Exhibit H" containing "analyses of a Blu-ray Recordable disks" (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). As Exhibit H is not provided, the following charts summarize the plaintiff's narrative infringement theory.

’685 Patent Infringement Allegations

’016 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. Can the plaintiff's "analyses" (Compl. ¶18, Ex. H) demonstrate that the accused Blu-ray discs meet every structural and dimensional limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the specific nanometer-scale ranges required by patents like the ’016 Patent?
• Process vs. Product Question: For product-by-process claims like Claim 1 of the ’685 patent, a key question will be whether the accused discs are actually made by the recited "second-generation stamper" process. While infringement is determined by the final product's structure, evidence of the manufacturing process used by Vinpower will be a central battleground.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "land tops are wider than the groove bottoms" (’685 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the central structural feature distinguishing the claimed replica disk from those made by conventional mastering, where lands are typically narrower than grooves. The entire infringement theory for the ’685 Patent hinges on proving the accused disks have this "inverted" geometry.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is a straightforward structural comparison. A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning without limitation to a specific manufacturing process, so long as the final structure meets the definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term must be read in light of the specification's disclosure of the "reverse mastering" process. The patent's figures and description (e.g., FIG. 19) show a specific structure with wide, flat-topped lands resulting from this process, potentially limiting the scope to that specific geometry.

• The Term: "interrupted grooves" (’016 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the data-encoding feature of the disk. Infringement depends on whether the physical features used to store data on the accused Blu-ray Discs (e.g., pits, marks) fall within the definition of "interrupted grooves."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any feature that breaks the continuity of a groove for the purpose of encoding data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’685 patent explicitly defines the term: "pits (i.e., interrupted grooves)" ('685 Patent, col. 2:40). This provides strong intrinsic evidence to limit the term's meaning to the conventional pits found on optical disks.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendant induces infringement by encouraging, instructing, and enabling its customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. This is allegedly done through information on its websites, such as brochures and promotional materials (Compl. ¶24, ¶32).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of willfulness. It establishes a basis for post-filing willfulness by stating that Defendant has knowledge of the patents "as early as the date of service of the Original Complaint in this action" and continues to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶24, ¶32, ¶40, ¶48). No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

• An Evidentiary Question of Structure: The case will centrally depend on a battle of experts and physical evidence. Can the plaintiff's non-public "analyses" (Compl. Ex. H) prove, on a nanometer scale, that the defendant's mass-produced Blu-ray discs possess the specific land/groove dimensions and "wider land tops" geometry required by the asserted claims?
• A Definitional Question of Process: For the product-by-process claims, a core issue will be whether the definition of the product is limited by the recited manufacturing steps. The court will need to determine how closely the plaintiff must connect the structure of the accused discs to the "second-generation stamper" process detailed in the patents.
• A Question of Scope: The case raises a question of claim scope regarding the term "interrupted grooves." The resolution will likely turn on whether this term is limited to the traditional "pits" explicitly defined in the specification or can be construed more broadly to cover other data-encoding marks used in modern recordable and re-writable media.